Tacna-Arica  Arbitration 


THE  CASE 

OF  THE  REPUBLIC  OF  CHILE 

SUBMITTED  TO 

THE  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 
AS  ARBITRATOR 

UNDER  THE  PROVISIONS  OF  THE  PROTOCOL  AND 

SUPPLEMENTARY  AGREEMENT  ENTERED 

INTO  BETWEEN  CHILE  AND  PERU 

AT  WASHINGTON  ON 

JULY  20,  1922 


Tacna-Arica  Arbitration 


THE  CASE 

OF  THE  REPUBLIC  OF  CHILE 

SUBMITTED  TO 

THE  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 
AS  ARBITRATOR 

UNDER  THE  PROVISIONS  OF  THE  PROTOCOL  AND 

SUPPLEMENTARY  AGREEMENT  ENTERED 

INTO  BETWEEN  CHILE  AND  PERU 

AT  WASHINGTON  ON 

JULY  20,  1922 


3 


EXOHWWS*' 


5^ 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

Pages 

INTRODUCTORY  STATEMENT 1 

PART  I.   The  Scope  of  the  Arbitration 8 

PART  IT.  The  First  Question :  Shall  a  Plebiscite 

be  Held? 13 

1.  Method  of  Treatment 13 

2.  Language  of  Article  III 13 

(a)  The  Ten-year  Period 15 

(b)  The  Plebiscite   21 

(c)  The  Payment  of  the  Ten  Millions 25 

3.  Negotiations 27 

(a)  The  Ten- Year  Period  28 

(b)  The  Plebiscite  63 

(c)  The  Payment  of  the  Ten  Millions 99 

4.  The  Present  Circumstances Ill 

PART  III.  The  Second  Question:  Conditions  for 

Holding  a  Plebiscite 116 

1.  Secrecy  of  the  Ballot 117 

2.  Qualifications  of  Voters 117 

3.  Method  of  Registering  Voters 136 

4.  Method  of  Receiving  the  Votes 148 

5.  Time  for  Holding  the  Plebiscite 150 

6.  Payment  of  the  Ten  Millions 153 

PART  IV.  The  Third  Question:  Tarata  and  Chil- 

caya 1 58 

1.  Tarata 159 

2.  Chilcaya 172 

STATEMENT  IN  CONCLUSION 180 


0£  (f^OJ 


THE  CASE  OF  CHILE. 
Introductory  Statement. 

War  broke  out  in  1879  between  the  Republic  of 
Chile  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Republics  of  Peru  and 
Bolivia  on  the  other  hand,  which  were  allies  under 
a  secret  treaty  entered  into  on  February  6,  1873.  Chile 
was  the  victor  in  the  war,  known  as  "the  War  of  the 
Pacific,"  and  at  its  conclusion  she  was  in  occupation 
of  the  littoral  of  Bolivia  and  Peru,  and  also  of  the  city 
of  Lima,  the  capital  of  the  latter  country.  A  treaty 
of  peace  between  Chile  arid  Peru  was  signed  at  Ancon 
on  October  20,  1883,  which  treaty  is  commonly  termed 
"the  Treaty  of  Ancon."  Ratifications  of  this  Treaty 
were  exchanged  on  March  28,  1884.  On  April  4,  1884, 
Chile  and  Bolivia  entered  into  a  truce  agreement  which 
was  eventually  replaced  by  the  Treaty  of  Peace  and 
Boundaries  between  those  countries.  It  was  signed  on 
October  20,  1904. 

The  present  arbitration  arises  out  of  Article  III  of 
the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  which  reads  as  follows : 

"Article  III.  The  territory  of  the  provinces  of 
Tacna  and  Arica,  bounded  on  the  north  by  the 
River  Sama  from  its  source  in  the  Cordilleras  on 
the  frontier  of  Bolivia  to  its  mouth  at  the  sea,  on 
the  south  by  the  ravine  and  River  Camarones, 
on  the  east  by  the  Republic  of  Bolivia,  and  on  the 
west  by  the  Pacific  Ocean,  shall  continue  in  the 
possession  of  Chile  subject  to  Chilean  laws  and 
authority  during  a  period  of  ten  years,  to  be  reck- 
oned from  the  date  of  the  ratification  of  the 
present  Treaty  of  Peace. 

"After  the  expiration  of  that  term  a  plebiscitum 
will  decide  by  popular  vote  whether  the  territories 
of  the  above  mentioned  provinces  will  remain  de- 


2  The  Case  of  Chile. 

finitely  under  the  dominion  and  sovereignty  of 
Chile  or  continue  to  form  part  of  Peru.  Either 
of  the  two  countries  to  which  the  provinces  of 
Tacna  and  Arica  may  remain  annexed,  will  pay  to 
the  other  ten  millions  of  Chile  silver  dollars  or 
Peruvian  soles  of  the  same  weight  and  fineness. 

"A  special  protocol,  which  will  be  considered 
as  an  integral  portion  of  the  present  treaty,  will 
prescribe  the  manner  in  which  the  plebiscitum  is 
to  be  carried  out,  and  the  terms  and  time  for  the 
payment  of  the  ten  millions  by  the  nation  .which 
may  remain  in  possession  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna 
and  Arica."* 

This  Article  provides  for  a  special  protocol  to  be 
considered  an  integral  part  of  the  Treaty,  which  shall 
prescribe  the  manner  in  which  the  plebiscite  is  to  be 
carried  out  and  the  terms  and  time  for  the  payment 
of  ten  millions  of  Chilean  silver  dollars  or  Peruvian 
soles  to  the  country  unsuccessful  in  the  plebiscite.  The 
negotiations  for  this  special  protocol  began  shortly 
before  the  expiration  of  the  ten-year  period  and  have 
continued  at  intervals  between  the  two  countries  up 
to  1922,  without  any  final  agreement  having  been 
reached. 

On  January  18,  1922,  the  American  Ambassador  to 
Chile,  Honorable  William  Miller  Collier,  transmitted 
to  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Chile,  Senor 
Ernesto  Barros,  the  following  invitation  for  a  confer- 
ence ill  Washington : 

"The  Government  of  the  United  States,  through 
the  courtesy  of  the  Ambassadors  of  Peru  and  Chile 
in  Washington,  has  been  kept  informed  of  the 
progress  of  their  negotiations  carried  on  directly 
by  telegraph  between  the  two  Governments  of 
Peru  and  Chile  looking  toward  a  settlement  of  the 


*This  translation  is  taken  from  the  Foreign  Eelations  of  the  United 
States,  1883,  p.  731. 


Introductory  Statement.  3 

long  standing  controversy  with  respect  to  the  un- 
fulfilled provisions  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon.  It 
has  noted  with  the  greatest  pleasure  and  satisfac- 
tion, the  lofty  spirit  of  conciliation  which  has  an- 
imated the  two  Governments,  and  that  as  a  result 
of  these  direct  exchanges  of  views  the  idea  of 
arbitration  of  the  pending  difficulties  is  acceptable 
in  principle  to  both.  It  has  also  taken  note  of 
the  suggestion  that  representatives  of  the  two  Gov- 
ernments be  named  to  meet  in  Washington  with  a 
view  to  finding  the  means  of  settling  the  diffi- 
culties which  have  divided  the  two  countries. 

"Desiring  in  the  interest  of  American  peace  and 
concord  to  assist  in  a  manner  agreeable  to  both 
Governments  concerned  in  finding  a  way  to  end 
this  long  standing  controversy,  the  President  of 
the  United  States  would  be  pleased  to  welcome  in 
Washington  the  representatives  which  the  Govern- 
ment of  Peru  and  Chile  may  see  fit  to  appoint  to 
the  end  that  such  representatives  may  settle,  if 
happily  it  may  be,  the  existing  difficulties  or  may 
arrange  for  the  settlement  of  them  by  arbi- 
tration. ' ' 

A  similar  invitation  was  transmitted  to  the  Govern- 
ment of  Peru  through  the  American  Embassy  at  Lima. 
This  invitation  was  accepted  by  both  countries  and 
their  duly  accredited  representatives  were  sent  to 
Washington  where  negotiations  for  a  settlement  began 
on  May  15,  1922,  and  ended  on  July  20th  of  the  same 
year.  On  that  date  the  plenipotentiaries  of  the  two 
Powers  signed  a  Protocol  and  Supplementary  Agree- 
ment.   The  Protocol  reads  as  follows: 

"Assembled  in  Washington,  D.  C,  pursuant  to 
the  invitation  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  of  America  for  the  purpose  of  reaching  a 
solution  of  the  long  standing  controversy  with 
respect  to  the  unfulfilled  provisions  of  the  Treaty 
of  Peace  of  October  20,  1883,  the  undersigned 
representatives  of  Peru  and  Chile  to  wit : 


The  Case  of  Chile. 

"Don  Carlos  Aldunate  and  Don  Luis  Izquierdo, 
Envoys  Extraordinary  and  Ministers  Plenipoten- 
tiary of  Chile  on  Special  Mission;  and 

"Don  Meliton  F.  Porras  and  Don  Hernan  Ve- 
larde, Envoys  Extraordinary  and  Ministers  Pleni- 
potentiary of  Peru  on  Special  Mission ; 

"After  exchanging  their  respective  full  powers, 
have  agreed  upon  the  following: 

"Article  .1.  It  is  hereby  recorded  that  the  only 
difficulties  arising  out  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace,  re- 
garding which  the  two  countries  have  not  been  able 
to  reach  an  agreement,  are  the  questions  arising 
out  of  the  unfulfilled  stipulations  of  Article  III 
of  said  Treaty. 

"Article  2.  The  difficulties  referred  to  in  the 
preceding  article  will  be  submitted  to  the  arbitra- 
tion of  the  President  of  the  United  States  of 
America  who  shall  decide  them  without  appeal 
after  hearing  the  parties  and  taking  into  consid- 
eration the  arguments  and  evidence  which  they 
may  present.  The  times  and  the  procedure  shall 
be  determined  by  the  arbitrator. 

"Article  3.  The  present  Protocol  shall  be  sub- 
mitted for  approval  to  the  respective  Governments 
and  the  ratifications  shall  be  exchanged  in  Wash- 
ington through  the  diplomatic  representatives  of 
Chile  and  Peru  within  the  maximum  period  of 
three  months. 

1 *  Signed  and  sealed  in  duplicate  in  "Washington, 
D.  C,  the  twentieth  of  July,  one  thousand  nine 
hundred  twenty-two. 9 ' 

The  Supplementary  Agreement  reads  as  follows: 

"In  order  to  determine  with  precision  the  scope 
of  the  arbitration  provided  for  in  Article  2  of  the 
Protocol  signed  on  this  date,  the  undersigned 
agree  to  place  on  record  hereby  the  following 
points : 

"First.  The  following  question,  raised  by  Peru 
at  the  session  of  the  Conference  held  on  May  27th 
last,  is  included  in  the  arbitration : 


Introductory  Statement.  5 

1  For  the  purpose  of  determining  the  manner  in 
which  the  stipulations  of  Article  III  of  the  Treaty 
of  Ancon  shall  be  fulfilled  there  shall  be  submitted 
to  arbitration  the  question  whether,  in  the  present 
circumstances,  the  plebiscite  shall  or  shall  not  be 
held.' 

"The  Government  of  Chile,  on  its  part,  may 
present  to  the  arbitrator  all  the  arguments  that 
it  may  deem  necessary  to  its  case. 

"Second.  In  case  that  it  is  decided  that  the  plebi- 
scite shall  be  held,  the  arbitrator  is  empowered  to 
determine  the  conditions  under  which  it  shall  be 
held. 

' i  Third.  If  the  arbitrator  should  decide  that  the 
plebiscite  shall  not  be  held,  both  parties,  at  the 
request  of  either  of  them,  shall  discuss  the  situ- 
ation created  by  this  decision. 

"It  is  understood,  in  the  interest  of  peace  and 
good  order,  that,  in  this  event,  and  pending  an 
agreement  as  to  the  disposition  of  the  territory, 
the  administrative  organization  of  the  provinces 
shall  not  be  disturbed. 

"Fourth.  The  two  Governments  shall  solicit,  in 
case  that  they  should  not  reach  an  agreement,  the 
good  offices  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
of  America,  in  order  that  an  agreement  may  be 
reached. 

"Fifth.  The  pending*  claims  regarding  Tarata 
and  Chilcaya  likewise  are  included  in  the  arbitra- 
tion, subject  to  the  determination  of  the  final  fate 
of  the  territory  to  which  Article  III  of  the  said 
Treaty  refers. 

"This  Act  is  an  integral  part  of  the  Protocol 
to  which  it  refers. 

"Signed  and  sealed  in  duplicate  in  Washington, 
D.  C,  the  twentieth  of  July,  one  thousand  nine 
hundred  twenty-two. n 

The  ratifications  of  this  Protocol  and  Supplemen- 
tary Agreement  were  exchanged  in  Washington  on 
January  15,  1923. 


6  The  Case  of  Chile. 

On  January  16,  1923,  the  Ambassador  of  Chile  and 
the  Ambassador  of  Peru  requested  that  the  President 
of  the  United  States  accept  the  office  of ,  Arbitrator 
under  the  Protocol  and  Supplementary  Agreement  of 
July  20,  1922. 

On  January  29, 1923,  the  Secretary  of  State  informed 
the  Ambassadors  of  Chile  and  Peru  that  the  President 
of  the  United  States  accepted  the  office  of  Arbitrator 
under  the  Protocol  and  Supplementary  Agreement. 

On  March  2, 1923,  the  Ambassadors  of  Chile  and  Peru 
in  Washington  agreed  upon  the  periods  within  which 
the  Cases  and  Counter  Cases  in  the  Arbitration,  and 
the  documents  relied  upon,  should  be  presented  to  the 
Arbitrator  and  advised  the  Secretary  of  State  of  this 
agreement.  Thereupon  the  Secretary  of  State,  on 
March  13,  1923,  advised  the  Ambassadors  of  Chile  and 
Peru  that  this  agreement  was  satisfactory  to  the  Pres- 
ident, and  he  informed  the  Ambassadors  on  behalf 
of  the  President  that  the  time  for  the  presentation  of 
the  Cases  would  date  from  March  13,  1923. 

The  printed  Case  on  the  part  of  Chile,  accompanied 
by  an  Appendix  of  printed  copies  of  the  official  corre- 
spondence, documents,  maps  and  other  evidence  on 
which  she  relies,  is  submitted  to  the  President  of  the 
United  States  as  Arbitrator  pursuant  to  the  agreement 
between  the  Ambassadors  of  Chile  and  Peru  above 
mentioned.  While  not  all  of  the  papers  printed  in  the 
Appendix  are  referred  to  in  the  Case,  they  have  been 
presented  in  order  to  avoid  any  suggestion  that  they 
have  been  intentionally  withheld  from  the  Arbitrator. 

The  subject  of  this  controversy  as  presented  in  the 
printed  Case  of  Chile  is  divided  into 

Part  I — The  Scope  of  the  Arbitration. 
Part  II— The  First  Question:    Shall  a  Plebiscite 
be  Held? 


Introductory  Statement.  7 

Part  III — The  Second  Question:     Conditions  for 

Holding  a  Plebiscite. 
Part  IV— The  Third  Question:   Tarata  and  Chil- 

caya. 

The  position  of  Chile  is  recapitulated  in  the  form  of 
conclusions  at  the  end  of  the  Case  under  the  heading 
"Statement  in  Conclusion. ' ' 


8  The  Case  of  Chile. 

PART  I. 

The  Scope  of  the  Abbitration. 

The  jurisdiction  of  the  Arbitrator  is  denned  by  Ar- 
ticles 1  and  2  of  the  Washington  Protocol  of  July  20, 
1922,  and  also  by  Clauses  1st,  2nd,  3rd  and  5th  of  the 
Supplementary  Agreement.  Articles  1  and  2  of  the  Pro- 
tocol limit  that  jurisdiction  to  a  consideration  of  and 
a  decision  upon  "the  questions  arising  out  of  the  un- 
fulfilled stipulations  of  Article  III"  of  the  Treaty  of 
Ancon,  which  are  stated  to  be  "the  only  difficulties 
arising  out  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  regarding  which 
the  two  countries  have  not  been, able  to  reach  an  agree- 
ment. ' ' 

The  "unfulfilled  stipulations,"  to  which  reference 
is  made  in  the  Protocol,  relate  to  the  holding  of  a  plebi- 
scite in  the  territory  which  formerly  comprised  the 
Peruvian  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  but  are  now 
departments  of  the  Chilean  province  of  Tacna,  and 
to  the  terms  of  payment  of  the  ten  millions  of  dollars 
by  the  country  successful  in  the  plebiscite. 

In  order,  to  determine  definitely  the  scope  of  the 
Arbitration  and  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Arbitrator  it 
was  agreed  in  Clause  1st  of  the  Supplementary  Agree- 
ment that,  in  order  to  determine  ' '  the  manner  in  which 
the  stipulations,"  under  consideration,  should  be  ful- 
filled, there  should  be  submitted  to  the  Arbitrator  for 
decision  the  question,  "whether,  in  the  present  cir- 
cumstances, the  plebiscite  shall  or  shall  not  be  held." 

In  the  event  that  the  Arbitrator  decides  this  ques- 
tion in  the  affirmative,  he  is  then  called  upon  by  Clause 
2nd  of  the  Supplementary  Agreement  to  fix  the  con- 
ditions of  holding  the  plebiscite,  as  the  decision  of 
the  Arbitrator  is,  to  all  intents,  a  substitute  for  the 
special  protocol  provided  for  in  Article  III  of  the 


The  Scope  of  the  Arbitration.  9 

Treaty  of  Ancon,  and  the  arbitral  proceedings  are  sub- 
stituted for  the  negotiation  of  such  protocol. 

But,  if  the  Arbitrator  decides  that  the  plebiscite 
should  not  be  carried  out,  all  his  arbitral  duties,  by 
virtue  of  Clause  3rd  of  the  Supplementary  Agreement, 
cease,  and  the  matter  of  adjusting  the  difficulties  aris- 
ing out  of  the  unfulfilled  stipulations  of  Article  III  of 
the  Treaty  of  Ancon  reverts  to  the  two  parties,  either 
of  whom  may  introduce  a  diplomatic  negotiation  con- 
cerning those  difficulties,  in  which  the  other  party  is 
bound  to  participate, .  provided  that  the  scope  of  the 
negotiation  is  restricted  to  the  situation  in  regard  to 
the  terms  of  Article  III  resulting  from  the  Arbitrator  's 
decision  against  holding  a  plebiscite,  and  provided 
also  that  "pending  an  agreement  as  to  the  disposi- 
tion of  the  territory  the  administrative  organization 
of  the  provinces  shall  not  be  disturbed." 

There  is  no  provision  in  the  Protocol  or  Supplemen- 
tary Agreement  which  authorizes  the  Arbitrator  to 
consider  any  other  means  of  settling  the  differences 
relative  to  Tacna  and  Arica  if  he  decides  that  a  plebi- 
scite should  not  be  held  nor  is  he  authorized  to  sug- 
gest bases  for  a  settlement  to  the  disputants.  To  do 
so  would  be,  it  is  respectfully  submitted,  to  exceed  the 
jurisdiction  conferred  upon  him  by  the  Washington 
Protocol. 

Incidental  to  the  question  of  a  plebiscite  and  of  de- 
termining thereby  the  definitive  sovereignty  over 
Tacna  and  Arica,  the  territory,  in  which  the  plebi- 
scite should  be  held  and  the  final  disposition  of  which 
would  be  determined  by  it,  ought  to  be  fixed  and  de- 
fined. In  view  of  the  fact  that  certain  inland  bound- 
aries of  this  territory  have  been  in  dispute  between 
the  parties,  it  was  agreed  by  Clause  5th  of  the  Sup- 
plementary Agreement  that  "the  pending  claims  re- 


10  The  Case  of  Chile. 

garding  Tarata  and  Chilcaya  likewise  are  included 
in  the  arbitration  subject  to  the  determination  of  the 
final  fate  of  the  territory  to  which  Article  III  of  the 
Treaty  refers.' '  While  the  provision  for  submission 
of  these  conflicting  claims  concerning  territory  might 
be  construed  as  requiring  no  decision  by  the  Arbitrator 
unless  he  decides  that  the  plebiscite  is  to  be  carried 
out,  a  broader  interpretation  would  be  that  the  defini- 
tion of  the  boundaries  in  dispute  is,  in  any  event,  to 
be  rendered  by  the  Arbitrator,  so  that  whether  or  not 
a  plebiscite  is  held,  a  vexatious  though  minor  question 
will  be  finally  removed  from  discussion.  It  is  assumed 
that  the  Arbitrator  will  determine  which  interpreta- 
tion should  be  given  to  Clause  5th.  Whichever 
interpretation  may  be  decided  upon  by  frim,  Chile 
will  accept  it  readily  and  without  controversy, 
though  she  feels  that  a  decision  of  this  question, 
however  the  other  questions  may  be  answered,  would 
be  in  the  interest  of  both  parties  since  it  would  re- 
move at  least  one  of  the  causes  of  controversy  be- 
tween Chile  and  Peru. 

The  Arbitrator  (to  repeat  what  has  already  been 
said)  is  called  upon,  therefore,  to  decide  in  the  first 
instance  whether,  in  the  present  circumstances,  the 
holding  of  a  plebiscite  in  the  territory  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  should  take  place  in  conformity  with  the  mutual 
intent  of  the  parties  to  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  as  set 
forth  in  Article  III  of  that  treaty  and  as  interpreted 
by  the  negotiations  which  have  been  conducted  be- 
tween the  Governments  of  Chile  and  Peru  since  the 
signature  of  that  convention. 

An  affirmative  answer  to  that  question  extends  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Arbitrator  since  it  empowers  him 
to  formulate  the  conditions  for  holding  the  plebiscite, 
among  which  conditions  should  be  included  the  terms 
of  payment  of  the  ten  millions  of  dollars,  an  essen- 


The  Scope  of  the  Arbitration.  11 

tial  part  of  the  protocol  provided  for- in  Article  III 
of  the  Treaty.  Furthermore  he  is  not  called  upon  to 
consider  the  legality  of  Chile's  continued  occupation  of 
the  territory  since  that  is  expressly  confirmed  by  the 
Washington  Protocol  and  Supplementary  Agreement; 

In  addition  to  the  foregoing  the  Arbitrator,  as  stated, 
is  required  to  determine  the  boundaries  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  by  settling  the  pending  claims  to  the  districts 
of  Tarata  and  Chilcaya,  which  are  the  only  territo- 
rial areas  whose  inclusion  in  or  exclusion  from  Tacna 
and  Arica  are  at  the  present  time  in  dispute  between 
the  parties  to  the  Treaty. 

In  view  of  these  definite  limitations  upon  the  juris- 
diction of  the  Arbitrator  it  is  not  deemed  proper  to  dis- 
cuss in  this  Case  the  causes  of  the  War  of  the  Pacific, 
the  justice  of  the  terms  of  peace  incorporated  in  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon,  or  any  portion  of  that  treaty  other 
than  Article  III  embracing  the  unfulfilled  stip- 
ulations of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  which  have  formed 
the  subject-matter  of  this  long-standing  controversy 
and  which  are,  under  the  provisions  of  the  Supplemen- 
tary Agreement  of  July  20,  1922,  submitted  to  arbitra- 
tion for  the  purpose  of  final  settlement  and  in  order 
to  remove  the  "only  differences ' '  which  are  obstacles 
to  the  restoration  of  that  friendly  intercourse  and 
mutual  good  will  that  ought  to  and  it  is  hoped  will 
characterize  the  future  relations  of  Chile  and  Peru. 

To  introduce  into  this.  Case  extraneous  matter,  which 
has  nothing  to  do  with  the  specific  questions  submit- 
ted to  arbitration  and  which  would  in  no  way  aid  the 
Arbitrator  in  reaching  a  just  and  reasoned  decision 
of  those  questions,  would  seem  to  Chile  to  be  an  un- 
justifiable attempt  to  becloud  the  real  issues  with 
sentiment  and  with  prejudice  in  favor  of  one  or  the 
other  participant  in  the  War  of  the  Pacific.  Holding 
this  view  as  to  the  limits  of  the  Case  to  be  submitted, 


12  The  Case  of  Chile. 

Chile  refrains  .from  statement,  comment  and  argu- 
ment on  any  subject  which  has  to  do  with  the  origin 
and  terms  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  other  than  Article 
III.  All  matter,  which  does  not  pertain  to  the  "un- 
fulfilled stipulations ' '  of  that  article  are  excluded  from 
the  Case  of  Chile  as  irrelevant  and  immaterial  to  the 
issues  specifically  raised  by  the  Washington  Protocol 
and  the  Supplementary  Agreement  of  July  20,  1922. 

The  responsibility  for  the  long  delay  and  continued 
failure  in  reaching  an  agreement  upon  the  manner 
of  holding  a  plebiscite  and  upon  the  terms  and  time 
of  payment  of  ten  millions  of  dollars  by  the  party 
successful  in  the  plebiscite  is  not  involved  in  this  ar- 
bitration, although  in  the  past  it  has  been  the  subject 
of  much  discussion  between  the  parties.  The  material 
fact  is  that  the  two  countries  were  unable  to  agree 
upon  conditions  for  holding  the  plebiscite  or  upon  the 
terms  and  time  for  the  payment  of  the  ten  millions, 
a  fact  which  is  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  and 
evidenced  by  the  Washington  Protocol.  Neither  coun- 
try was  willing  to  accede  to  the  proposals  of  the  other 
during  the  course  of  the  negotiations,  and  the  efforts 
of  both  to  find  a  common  ground  for  compromising 
their  differences  failed.  The  negotiations  initiated  in 
practically  every  case  by  Chile,  extended  with  inter- 
ruptions over  a  period  of  twenty  years,  1893  to  1912; 
and,  while  on  several  occasions  an  agreement  seemed 
near,  the  Governments  were  frustrated  by  some  un- 
fortunate occurrence  from  securing  the  necessary  sanc- 
tion of  the  protocol  by  the  legislative  branch  of  one 
or  the  other  of  the  respective  Governments.  Arbi- 
tration has  now  taken  the  place  of  diplomatic  nego- 
tiation, which  has  proved  fruitless  in  the  past. 

Chile  seeks  an  arbitral  award  based  upon  principles 
of  international  justice  and  sound  policy  and  not  a  de- 
cision founded  upon  national  sentiment  and  the  pride 
of  race. 


The  First  Question.  13 

PART  II. 

The  Fiest  Question:  Shall  a  Plebiscite  Be  Held? 

1. — Method  of  Treatment. 

The  First  Question  submitted  to  the  Arbitrator  for 
decision  under  the  Protocol  and  Supplementary  Agree- 
ment of  July  20,  1922,  is  stated  in  Clause  1st  of  the 
Agreement  in  the  following  terms : 

"  For  the  purpose  of  determining  the  manner  in 
which  the  stipulations  of  Article  III  of  the  Treaty 
of  Ancon  shall  be  fulfilled  there  shall  be  submitted 
to  arbitration  the  question  whether,  in  the  present 
circumstances,  a  plebiscite  shall  or  shall  not  be 
held." 

In  order  to  aid  the  Arbitrator  in  reaching  a  decision 
of  this  question  it  is  the  purpose  to  consider,  first,  the 
meaning  of  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  and  the 
intent  of  the  parties  as  shown  by  the  language  of  the 
Article ;  second,  the  interpretation  of  the  provisions  of 
the  Article,  which  has  been  placed  upon  them  by  the 
parties  in  the  negotiations  that  took  place,  after  the 
celebration  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  in  the  endeavor  to 
reach  an  agreement  upon  the  special  protocol  provided 
for  in  Article  III ;  and,  third,  the  interpretation  to  be 
placed  upon  the  phrase  "in  the  present  circumstances ! ' 
appearing  in  the  Clause  of  the  Supplementary  Agree- 
ment above  quoted. 

2. — The  Language  of  Article  III. 

Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  which  was  signed 
on  October  20, 1883,  and  the  ratifications  of  which  were 
exchanged  on  March  28,  1884,  reads  as  follows : 

"Articulo  III.  El  territorio  de  las  provincias  de 
Tacna  i  Arica,  que  limita  por  el  norte  con  el  rio 
Sama  desde  su  nacimiento  en  las  Cordilleras  limi- 


14  The  Case  of  Chile. 

trofes  con  Bolivia  hasta  su  desembocadura  en  el 
mar ;  por  el  sur  con  la  quebrada  i  rio  de  Camaro- 
nes ;  por  el  orient.e  con  la  Repiiblica  de  Bolivia,  i 
por  el  poniente  con  el  mar  Pacifico,  continuara  po- 
seido  por  Chile  i  sujeto  a  la  legislacion  i  autoridades 
chilenas  durante  el  termino  de  diez  anos  contados 
desde  que  se  ratifique  el  presente  Tratado  de  paz. 
Espirado  este  plazo,  un  plebiscito  decidira,  en 
votacion  popular  si  el  territorio  de  las  provincial 
referidas  queda  definitivamente  del  dominio  i 
soberania  de  Chile,  o  si  continua  siendo  parte  del 
territorio  peruano.  Aquel  de  10s  dos  paises  a  cuyo 
favor  queden  anexadas  las  provincias  de  Tacna  i 
Arica,  pagara  al  otro  diez  millones  de  pesos 
moneda  chilena  de  plata,  o  soles  peruanos  de  igual 
lei  i  peso  que  aquella. 

"Un  protocolo  especial,  que  se  considerara 
como  parte  integrante  del  presente  Tratado,  es- 
tablecera  la  forma  en  que  el  plebiscito  deba  tener, 
lugar  i  los  terminos  i  plazos  en  que  hayan  de 
pagarse  los  diez  millones  por  el  pais  que  quede 
duefio  de  las  provincias  de  Tacna  i  Arica." 

Translation  appearing  in  the  Foreign  Relations  of  the 
United  States,  1883,  p.  731. 

"Art.  III.  The  territory  of  the  province  of  Tacna 
and  Arica,  bounded  on  the  north  by  the  River 
Sama  from  its  source  in  the  Cordilleras  on  the 
frontier  of  Bolivia  to  its  mouth  at  the  sea,  on  the 
south  by  the  ravine  and  River  Camarones,  on  the 
east  by  the  Republic  of  Bolivia,  and  on  the  west 
by  the  Pacific  Ocean,  shall  continue  in  the  posses- 
sion of  Chile  subject  to  Chilean  laws  and  authority 
during  a  period  of  ten  years,  to  be  reckoned  from 
the  date  of  the  ratification  of  the  present  Treaty  of 
Peace. 

"  After  the  expiration  of  that  term  a  plebiscitum 
will  decide  by  popular  vote  whether  the  territories 
of  the  above-mentioned  provinces  will  remain 
definitely  under  the  dominion  and  sovereignty  of 
Chile  or  continue  to  form  part  of  Peru.    Either  of 


The  First  Question.  15 

the  two  countries  to  which  the  provinces  of  Tacna 
and  Arica  may  remain  annexed,  will  pay  to  the 
other  ten  'millions  of  Chile  silver  dollars  or  Peru- 
vian soles  of  the  same  weight  and  fineness. 

"A  special  protocol,  which  will  be  considered  as 
an  integral  portion  of  the  present  treaty,  will  pre- 
scribe the  manner  in  which  the  plebiscitum  is  to 
be  carried  out,  and  the  terms  and  time  for  the  pay- 
ment of  the  ten  millions  by  the  nation  which  may 
remain  in  possession  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna 
Arica. ' ' 

The  Article  divides  itself  into  three  parts:  (1)  the 
possession  of  the  territory  of  Tacna  and  Arica  for  a 
period  of  ten  years  succeeding  the  ratification  of  the 
treaty;  (2)  the  holding  of  a  plebiscite  after  the  ten 
years  had  expired  to  determine  definitely  the  sover- 
eignty over  the  territory  under  a  protocol  prescribing 
the  manner  of  carrying  out  such  plebiscite;  and  (3) 
the  payment  by  the  country  successful  in  the  plebiscite 
to  the  other  country  of  the  sum  of  ten  millions  of  Chil- 
ean silver  pesos  or  their  equivalent  in  Peruvian  soles, 
the  terms  and  time  of  payment  to  be  prescribed  by  the 
protocol  regulating  the  holding  of  the  plebiscite. 

(a)  The  Ten-year  Period. 

The  Peruvian  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  having 
been  occupied  by  the  armed  forces  of  Chile  during  the 
conduct  of  the  War  of  the  Pacific,  were  at  the  time  of 
the  negotiation  and  signature  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon 
under  the  military  occupation  and  control  of  Chile. 

It  was  agreed  by  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  that  the 
possession  of  the  provinces  by  Chile  should  continue 
and  that  the  territory  and  its  inhabitants  should  be 
subject  to  Chilean  laws  and  authority,  thus  converting 
military  occupation  into  a  formal  cession  of  the  prov- 


16  The  Case  of  Chile. 

inces  by  recognizing  in  the  Treaty  Chile's  complete 
sovereignty  over  the  territory  and  over  its  people  in 
time  of  peace.  The  terms  of  the  cession  in  no  way  lim- 
ited the  exercise  by  Chile  of  fnll  sovereign  powers  with- 
in the  territory  ceded.  Chilean  laws  were  supreme  and 
Chilean  authority  was  unconditional,  and  Chile  was 
not  accountable  to  any  other  sovereign  state  for  the 
way  in  which  she  exercised  the  sovereign  rights  pos- 
sessed by  her  after  the  ratification  of  the  Treaty  of 
Ancon. 

While  the  cession  of  the  territory,  comprised  within 
the  boundaries  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  was  complete  and 
unqualified  and  while  the  two  provinces  became  there- 
by an  integral  part  of  the  territorial  possessions  of 
Chile,  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  provided  that,  after  the 
expiration  of  ten  years  from  the  date  of  the  ratifica- 
tion of  the  Treaty,  the  cession  might  be  annulled  and 
Chilean  sovereignty  extinguished  by  a  plebiscite  by 
popular  vote,  provided  that  before  the  plebiscite  was 
held  a  special  protocol  was  negotiated  between  Chile 
and  Peru  prescribing  the  manner  in  which  it  should  be 
carried  out,  and  also  prescribing  the  terms  and  time 
for  the  payment  of  ten  millions  of  Chilean  silver  dollars 
or  Peruvian  soles  by  the  successful  party. 

The  provision  of  Article  III  under  consideration,  is 
that  for  the  period  of  ten  years  following  the  ratifica- 
tion of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  which  took  place  on  March 
28,  1884,  the  acts  of  Chile  as  sovereign  over  the  ceded 
territory  were  not  to  be  questioned  but  that  Peru  might 
endeavor  to  obtain  a  recession  of  Tacna  and  Arica 
through  the  medium  of  a  plebiscite  upon  the  expira- 
tion of  that  term,  and  upon  a  protocol  being  agreed 
upon  by  the  parties  providing  the  manner  of  holding 
the  plebiscite  and  also  the  terms  and  time  of  payment 
of  ten  millions  by  the  nation  successful  in  the  plebi- 
scite. 


The  First  Question.  17 

While  the  reasons  for  providing  in  Article  III  for 
the  possible  annulment  of  the  cession  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  to  Chile,  after  the  expiration  of  ten  years  from 
the  date  on  which  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  went  into  effect, 
are  not  stated  in  Article  III,  they  may  be  presumed 
from  the  provisions  of  the  Article  and  from  the  condi- 
tions which  prevailed  at  the  time  of  the  negotiation  of 
the  Treaty.  Chile,  after  four  years  of  conflict,  waged 
at  the  expense  of  many  Chilean  lives  and  much  of  her 
national  wealth,  had  completely  defeated  the  allied 
Republics  of  Peru  and  Bolivia  both  on  land  and  sea. 
The  Peruvian  capital,  the  southern  provinces  and  most 
of  the  littoral  of  the  Republic  were  occupied  by  the 
military  and  naval  forces  of  Chile.  The  Peruvian  navy 
no  longer  existed.  The  armies  of  Peru,  defeated  and 
disorganized,  were  incapable  of  further  resistance. 
The  Peruvian  treasury  was  empty  and  the  national  re- 
sources were  inadequate  to  meet  the  large  debts  which 
the  Peruvian  Government  had  incurred  before 
and  during  the  war.  Exhausted,  prostrate  and  with- 
out military  or  financial  ability  to  continue  the 
struggle,  Peru  was  in  no  position  to  resist  any  terms 
of  peace  which  Chile  might  have  seen  fit  to  impose. 
The  dictation  of  the  terms  of  peace  was  as  fully  in  her 
power  as  were  the  terms  which  were  imposed  upon 
Mexico  by  the  United  States  of  America  in  1848  and 
upon  Spain  in  1898,  as  well  as  those  imposed  upon  the 
Central  Empires  by  the  Allied  and  Associated  Powers 
at  Versailles  in  1919.  Chile  exercised  the  rights  which 
belong  to  a  nation  victorious  in  a  long  and  bitterly 
fought  war,  which  had  cost  much  in  life  and  property, 
as  did  the  victors  in  the  wars  which  are  referred  to 
above.  She  had  the  same  right  to  annex  Peruvian  ter- 
ritory as  the  United  States  had  to  annex  the  vast  terri- 
tory acquired  from  Mexico  or  the  Philippines  and  Porto 
Rico  from  Spain. 


18  The  Case  of  Chile. 

Though  Chile  possessed  the  power  to  impose  upon 
Peru  any  terms  of  peace  which  might  be  for  Chilean 
interests,  the  Santiago  Government  showed  a  consider- 
ation for  the  national  spirit  of  the  Peruvian  people  and 
a  desire  to  spare  them  the  humiliation  of  ceding  to  her 
the  Peruvian  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica  without 
recourse.  Chile  sought  a  proper  indemnity  for  the 
great  waste  in  blood  and  treasure  which  her  people 
had  suffered  as  a  consequence  of  the  War  of  the  Pacific. 
As  victor  she  was  entitled  to  indemnity,  as  other  vic- 
tors have  been.  This  idemnity  could  be  paid  either  in 
territory  or  money.  Peru  was  bankrupt.  She  could 
not  pay  a  money  indemnity.  It  was  only  possible, 
therefore,  to  obtain  a  cession  of  territory  by  way  of 
indemnification.  This  Chile  insisted  upon,  but  in  order 
to  lessen  the  harshness  of  the  blow  to  Peruvian 
national  pride  she  went  so  far  as  to  make  provision  for 
a  recession  of  a  portion  of  the  ceded  territory,  namely 
that  comprising  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica, 
after  the  expiration  of  ten  years  and  under  certain  con- 
ditions. Unless  those  conditions  were  fulfilled  the 
ceded  provinces  would  remain  Chilean. 

In  this  way  Chile  was  furnished  opportunity  to 
employ  her  full  sovereign  rights  in  Tacna  and  Arica 
to  prepare  the  inhabitants  of  that  territory  for  the 
time  when  a  plebiscite  should  take  place  to  determine 
the  definitive  dominion  and  sovereignty  of  the  prov- 
inces. It  also  offered  the  Peruvian  Government  oppor- 
tunity to  obtain  by  loan  or  otherwise  the  ten  millions 
of  soles  which  were  to  be  paid  by  Peru  in  the  event  that 
the  plebiscite  should  be  decided  in  her  favor.  ' '  Chile- 
anization" — to  use  a  term  which  has  been  invidiously 
employed  by  Peruvian  statesmen  and  publicists — was 
certainly  justifiable  during  the  period  under  considera- 
tion, and  was  to  be  expected.   That  it  was  expected  is 


The  First  Question.  19 

evidenced  by  the  fact  that  Peru  made  no  preparations 
to  obtain  the  ten  millions  which  she  would  be  com- 
pelled to  pay,  if  the  plebiscite  resulted  in  her  favor. 
It  is  difficult  to  draw  any  conclusion  from  this  inaction 
other  than  that  Peru  was  convinced  that,  when  the  time 
came  for  holding  the  plebiscite,  the  popular  verdict 
would  be  in  favor  of  Chile  and  that  Peru  would  be  the 
Recipient  of  ten  million  Chilean  pesos  rather  than  the 
payer  of  ten  million  Peruvian  soles. 

Considering  that  the  cession  of  Tacna  and  Arica  was 
in  the  nature  of  a  war  indemnity,  it  is  illogical  to  assert 
that,  upon  the  expiration  of  the  period  of  ten  years, 
Peruvian  sovereignty  was  automatically  restored  and 
that  Chile  was,  ipso  facto,  compelled  to  withdraw  her 
laws  and  authority  from  the  ceded  territory.  If  this 
were  the  case,  Chile  would  have  been  deprived  of  that 
part  of  her  indemnity  provided  for  in  Article  III  of 
the  Treaty  of  Ancon.  To  surrender  this  indemnity 
was  never  her  intention,  nor  was  it  the  expectation  of 
Peru.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  Peru  had  believed  that 
she  was  entitled  to  take  over  the  sovereignty  of  Tacna 
and  Arica,  she  would  have  either  tendered  to  Chile  ten 
million  soles  or  else  placed  with  a  neutral  depository 
that  sum  subject  to  the  result  of  the  plebiscite.  But 
Peru  did  neither,  thus  showing  by  her  failure  to  pre- 
pare for  payment  what  her  belief  was  at  that  time  as 
to  the  future  disposition  of  her  former  provinces. 

Under  the  stipulations  of  Article  III  it  is  clear  that 
before  Tacna  and  Arica  could  be  returned  to  Peru  three 
conditions  must  take  place:  (1)  the  expiration  of  ten 
years;  (2)  the  holding  of  a  plebiscite;  and,  (3)  the 
payment  of  ten  million  soles. 

Of  these  conditions  one  has  happened,  viz.,  the  ex- 
piration of  the  period  of  ten  years,  but  the  others  have 
not  as  yet  been  fulfilled.    They  are  among  the  "unful- 


20  The  Case  of  Chile. 

filled  stipulations ' '  referred  to  in  the  Washington  Pro- 
tocol. As  has  been  set  forth,  Chile's  possession  was 
not  a  mere  holding  of  conquered  territory  but  a  com- 
plete ownership  by  formal  cession  thereof  subject  to 
re-cession  compelled  by  a  plebiscite  in  favor  of  Peru 
and  upon  the  payment  of  ten  million  soles  by  Peru  to 
Chile.  Chile's  conditions  of  peace  accepted  by  Peru 
were  fundamentally  based  among  other  things  on  the 
receipt  by  her  of  an  indemnity  in  territory  or  money. 
Accordingly,  Chile  was  to  have  the  permanent  posses- 
sion of  Tacna  and  Arica  or  ten  million  soles,  depending 
upon  the  result  of  the  plebiscite.  Stripped  of  unneces- 
sary verbiage  this  is  the  sum  and  substance  of  Article 
III.  Was  it  the  intent  of  the  parties  or  was  it  reason- 
able to  expect  that  Chile  would  give  up  the  dominion 
and  sovereignty  of  the  territory  at  the  end  of  ten  years 
without  either  a  plebiscite  or  the  payment  of  ten  mil- 
lion soles?  The  mere  statement  of  the  proposition 
answers  the  question.  To  return  the  dominion  and 
sovereignty  over  the  territory  to  Peru  would  assume 
the  fulfillment  of  the  two  conditions  mentioned  which 
have  never  been  performed,  and  would,  moreover,  as- 
sume that  there  had  been  a  plebiscite  favorable  to 
Peru. 

There  is  no  stipulation  in  Article  III  as  to  receding 
the  territory  to  Peru  except  upon  the  contingencies 
mentioned  nor  is  there  any  provision  for  turning  the 
territory  over  to  a  third  power  pending  the  outcome  of 
the  plebiscite  and  the  payment  of  the  ten  million  dol- 
lars. The  conditions  not  having  been  performed  and 
no  other  provision  having  been  made  for  the  disposi- 
tion of  the  territory  after  ten  years  had  elapsed,  there 
was  and  is  no  other  disposition  of  Tacna  and  Arica  to 
be  made  save  that  which  has  been  made,  namely,  con- 
tinued possession  of  the  dominion  and  sovereignty  by 


The  First  Question.  21 

Chile  until  the  conditions  have  been  performed  or  have 
been  modified  by  mutual  consent  of  the  parties. 

The  rights  of  dominion  and  sovereignty,  which  Chile 
possessed  after  the  expiration  of  the  ten-year  period, 
were  the  same  as  those  which  she  possessed  during  that 
period,  and  she  was  legally  authorized  to  exercise  such 
rights  as  fully  in  one  case  as  in  the  other. 

(b)  The  Plebiscite. 

The  language  of  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon 
relative  to  the  holding  of  a  plebiscite  in  the  territory 
of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica  is  as  follows : 

!  "After  the  expiration  of  that  term!  [ten  years 
from  the  ratification  of  the  Treaty \  a  plebi- 
scitum  will  decide  by  popular  vote  whether  the  ter- 
ritories of  the  above-mentioned  provinces  will  re- 
main definitely  under  the  dominion  and  sover- 
eignty of  Chile  or  continue  to  form  part  of  Peru 
[territorio  peruano], 

"A  special  protocol,  which  will  be  considered  an 
integral  part  of  the  present  treaty,  will  prescribe 
the  manner  [forma]  in  which  the  plebiscitum  is  to 
be  carried  out  [deba  tener  lugar],  and  *  *  V 

The  holding  of  the  proposed  plebiscite  is  by  the 
terms  of  Article  III  dependent  upon  two  prerequisites ; 
first,  the  expiration  of  the  ten-year  period,  and,  second, 
the  negotiation  and  ratification  by  Chile  and  Peru  of 
a  special  protocol  prescribing,  or,  literally,  "establish- 
ing, ' '  the  manner  or  form  of  holding  the  plebiscite,  and 
also  the  terms  and  time  of  payment  of  the  ten  millions 
of  dollars  by  the  party  successful  in  the  plebiscite. 

The  first  of  these  prerequisites,  the  expiration  of  the 
ten-year  period,  required  no  action  by  either  of  the 
parties  to  the  Treaty.    It  automatically  resulted  from 


22  The  Case  of  Chile. 

the  lapse  of  time  and  was  accomplished  on  March  28, 
1894.  The  remaining  prerequisite  was  the  execution 
by  the  parties  of  a  special  protocol,  which  was  to  pre- 
scribe the  manner  of  holding  the  plebiscite  and  also  the 
terms  and  time  [literally,  times]  of  payment  of  ten  mil- 
lions of  Chilean  pesos  or  Peruvian  soles  by  the  party 
successful  in  the  plebiscite.  This  latter  subject  of 
agreement  and  its  necessary  inclusion  in  the  protocol 
Avill  be  considered  later. 

The  negotiation  and  ratification  of  the  special  pro- 
tocol were  vital  to  the  holding  of  the  plebiscite.  Unless 
the  parties  to  the  Treaty  came  to  an  agreement  as  to 
the  manner  of  organizing  the  agency  for  receiving  the 
popular  vote  and  of  determining  the  time  when  it  should 
be  held,  and  unless  the  parties  agreed  as  to  the  quali- 
fications of  the  persons  entitled  to  cast  their  votes  in 
the  plebiscite,  the  plebiscite  could  not  be  carried  out. 
Furthermore,  the  protocol  could  not  be  executed  or  be- 
come effective  unless  an  agreement  was  included  in  it 
as  to  the  terms  of  payment  of  the  ten  millions  after  the 
plebiscite  had  been  held  and  the  popular  will  had  been 
expressed  by  popular  vote. 

It  was  not  to  be  presumed  that  a  protocol  of  this 
character,  which  involved  the  final  determination  of 
the  sovereignty  over  the  territory  of  Tacna  and  Arica, 
could  be  settled  without  a  protracted  negotiation  cover- 
ing all  the  various  phases  of  the  plebiscite,  as  well  as 
the  payment  of  the  ten  millions.  The  phrase,  "by 
popular  vote/'  was  alone  sufficiently  uncertain  in  its 
possible  application  to  present  opportunity  for  an 
honest  difference  of  opinion  as  to  its  meaning  and  to 
furnish  a  subject  for  a  long  and  stubborn  controversy. 
Chile  had  from  the  first  expected  and  Peru  had  desired 
to  obtain  the  dominion  and  sovereignty  of  the  prov- 
inces in  perpetuity,  and  each,  in  the  endeavor  to  attain 


The  First  Question.  23 

its  end,  would  naturally  insist  upon  terms  in  the  proto- 
col which  would  give  her  an  advantage  in  the  plebiscite. 
It  is  apparent  that  there  would  have  to  be  a  compro- 
mise of  conflicting  interests,  based  upon  a  withdrawal 
by  both  parties  from  their  extreme  demands  as  to 
terms.  The  success  of  the  negotiation  depended  in  large 
measure  on  the  spirit  of  conciliation  manifested  by  the 
negotiators  and  on  their  influence  with  their  respective 
Governments,  including  both  the  executive  and  legisla- 
tive branches,  to  secure  a  sanction  of  the  agreement 
reached  in  the  negotiation  by  a  ratification  of  the  pro- 
tocol. Unless  there  was  "a  meeting  of  the  minds' ' 
of  the  two  Governments  as  well  as  of  the  individual 
negotiators,  the  prerequisite  of  the  execution  of  the 
special  protocol  would  fail  and  the  plebiscite  mani- 
festly could  not  be  held. 

The  only  recourse,  in  the  event  a  negotiated  protocol 
failed  to  obtain  the  necessary  governmental  endorse- 
ment, was  to  reopen  the  negotiations  and  to  endeavor 
to  find  a  formula  which  would  meet  the  objections 
raised  to  the  protocol  proposed  and  by  doing  so  to  se- 
cure the  sanction  and  approval  of  both  Governments  to 
a  new  agreement.  A  review  of  the  past  thirty  years 
shows  that  Chile  and  Peru  realized  that  the  agreement 
upon  a  protocol  was  absolutely  essential  to  the  deter- 
mination of  whether  or  not  Tacna  and  Arica  should  re- 
main permanently  Chilean  territory  or  be  receded  to 
Peru  as  a  consequence  of  a  plebiscite  favoring  such  re- 
cession. 

The  question  to  be  decided  by  the  plebiscite  is  stated 
by  the  provisions  of  Article  III  to  be  "whether  the 
territories  of  the  above-mentioned  provinces  [to  wit, 
Tacna  and  Arica]  will  remain  definitely  [definitiva- 
mentel  under  the  dominion  and  sovereignty  of  Chile  or 
continue  to  form  part  of  Peru  [territorio  peruanol." 

The  italicized  words,   "remain"   and   "continue," 


24  The  Case  of  Chile. 

seem  to  convey  contradictory  ideas  since  both  carry 
the  same  meaning  of  perpetuation  of  an  existing  terri- 
torial sovereignty.  This  contradiction,  however,  is 
only  apparent.  The  explanation  is  to  be  found  in  the 
conditions  which  existed  immediately  prior  to  October 
20,  1883,  when  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  was  being  negoti- 
ated. At  that  time  the  legal  sovereignty  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  was  in  Peru,  though  its  exercise  was  suspended 
because  the  territory  was  occupied  by  Chilean  forces 
and  subject  to  Chilean  military  authority.  There  had 
then  been  no  formal  cession  of  the  provinces  to  Chile. 
They  were  a  part  of  Peru,  of  the  "territorio  peruano," 
which  Chile  held  in  possession  as  an  invading  power, 
subject  to  their  disposition  under  the  terms  of  peace. 
It  was  with  this  fact  in  mind  that  the  negotiators  em- 
ployed the  word,  ' '  continue. ' '  It  did  not  refer  to  the 
state  of  the  provinces  existing  at  the  time  when  the 
plebiscite  was  to  be  held,  but  to  their  state  at  the  time 
when  the  Treaty  of  Peace  was  negotiated  and  when 
Article  III  was  drafted.  There  is  no  other  logical  ex- 
planation for  the  use  of  the  word  "continue"  when 
read  in  connection  with  the  words  in  the  same  clause  of 
Article  III  which  refer  to  Chilean  "dominion  and 
sovereignty. ' ' 

The  word  "remain,"  on  the  other  hand,  must  of 
necessity  refer  to  the  time  in  the  future  when  the  spe- 
cial protocol,  provided  for  in  Article  III,  had  been 
negotiated  and  signed.  The  cession  of  the  territory  by 
Peru  to  Chile  had  taken  place  at  least  ten  years  before 
that  time.  Chile  then  possessed  the  dominion  and 
sovereignty  over  Tacna  and  Arica  by  treaty  grant.  Her 
possession  was  a  legal  right  and  not  merely  a  belliger- 
ent right.  The  question  submitted  to  popular  vote  in 
the  plebiscite  was  whether  or  not  the  provinces  should 
remain   "definitely  under   the   dominion   and   sover- 


The  First  Question.  25 

eignty"  of  Chile.  These  words  express  full  and  com- 
plete sovereign  rights  over  territory  and  persons.  No 
attributes  of  sovereignty  exist  other  than  those  in- 
cluded in  dominium  et  imperium. 

The  foregoing  comments,  on  the  words  "continue" 
and  '  *  remain, ' '  it  is  submitted,  offer  a  rational  explana- 
tion of  their  use  in  Article  III.  It  is  thus  that  they 
have  been  understood  by  Chile  and  no  other  explana- 
tion has  been  suggested  which  does  not  introduce  doubt 
and  uncertainty  as  to  the  intention  of  the  parties  to  the 
Treaty,  and  compel  the  acceptance  of  an  argument 
Avhich  is  illogical  and  based  upon  unsound  principles  of 
interpretation  and  false  deductions. 

(c)  The  Payment  of  the  Ten  Millions. 

The  special  protocol,  which  was  to  be  entered  into  by 
Chile  and  Peru  and  was  to  prescribe  the  manner 
[forma]  of  holding  the  plebiscite,  was  also  to  prescribe 
the  terms  and  time  for  the  payment  of  the  ten  millions 
of  Chilean  silver  pesos  or  Peruvian  soles  of  the  same 
weight  and  fineness,  which  it  was  agreed  should  be 
paid  by  the  country  to  which  Tacna  and  Arica  should 
"remain  annexed"  as  a  result  of  the  plebiscite. 

This  provision  as  to  the  terms  and  time  of  payment 
was  to  be  an  integral  part  of  the  protocol  and  without 
an  agreement  between  the  parties  as  to  such  payment 
the  protocol  could  not  become  effective  and  the  plebi- 
scite could  not  take  place  even  though  the  parties  were 
in  full  accord  as  to  the  manner  in  which  it  should  be 
conducted.  Agreement  in  regard  to  this  matter  was  a 
condition  precedent  to  the  holding  of  the  plebiscite,  and 
either  party  was  justified  in  withholding  its  approval 
to  the  plebiscitary  protocol  until  terms  of  payment 
satisfactory  to  it  had  been  accepted  by  the  other  party. 

Under  normal  conditions  this  matter  of  payment 


26  The  Case  of  Chile. 

would  have  been  easily  adjusted,  as  it  ought  to  be  at 
the  present  time.  But  the  conditions  during  the  early 
negotiations  were  not  normal.  Peru  was  politically 
disorganized  and  bankrupt  at  the  close  of  the  War  of 
the  Pacific.  So  grave  was  her  financial  situation  and 
so  remote  the  probability  of  her  return  to  solvency  in 
view  of  her  inability  to  meet  the  interest  upon  her  for- 
eign debts,  that  a  bare  promise  to  pay,  in  the  event 
of  Peruvian  success  in  the  plebiscite,  was  not  sufficient 
to  assure  the  payment  of  the  sum  to  Chile.  It  was  not  a 
question  of  good  faith  or  honest  purpose  but  of  ability 
on  the  part  of  Peru  to  meet  this  further  demand  upon 
her  national  income,  which  was  already  overburdened. 
Chile  did  not  doubt  her  good  faith  or  sincerity  of  pur- 
pose, but  she  did  doubt  Peru's  ability. 

If  the  state  of  Peru's  political  and  financial  condi- 
tion had  been  otherwise,  the  terms  of  payment  might 
have  been  written  into  Article  III  at  the  time  that  it 
was  drafted,  instead  of  reserving  them  for  future  nego- 
tiation between  the  two  countries.  It  was  clearly  the 
intent  of  the  parties  to  postpone  a  discussion  of  this 
important  matter  to  a  time  when  the  political  situation 
and  finances  of  Peru  were  in  a  better  condition,  a  con- 
dition which  it  was  mutually  hoped  and  doubtless  ex- 
pected would  exist  after  the  ten-year  period  had  ex- 
pired and  the  special  protocol  in  regard  to  holding  a 
plebiscite  was  being  negotiated. 

It  was  only  natural  in  the  circumstances  that  Chile 
should  insist  that  an  agreement  as  to  terms  and  time  of 
payment  of  the  ten  millions  should  be  included  in  the 
special  protocol  providing  for  the  way  in  which  the 
plebiscite  should  be  held  before  that  undertaking  could 
be  finally  entered  into  by  the  parties.  It  could  not  be 
ignored  or  avoided  in  any  event  except  by  a  formal 
amendment  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  which  by  Article 
III  made  it  a  necessary  part  of  the  special  protocol. 


The  Fiest  Question.  27 

The  wisdom  of  this  condition  precedent  to  the  hold- 
ing of  the  plebiscite  will  be  manifest  when  the  negotia- 
tions following  the  expiration  of  the  ten-year  period 
are  reviewed,  as  they  will  be  in  a  later  place  in  this 
Case.  Suffice  it  here  to  say  that  it  became  a  prominent 
subject  of  discussion  and  of  exchange  of  views  between 
the  two  Governments,  and  was,  for  a  time,  one  of  the 
chief  obstacles  to  an  agreement  upon  the  special  proto- 
col, though  it  assumed  less  and  less  importance  as  time 
progressed  and  as  Peru  gradually  recovered  from  the 
deplorable  state  of  financial  exhaustion  and  political 
unrest  in  which  she  was  at  the  close  of  the  War  of  the 
Pacific. 

3.  Negotiations. 

In  considering  the  negotiations  which  have  taken 
place  between  Chile  and  Peru  regarding  Article  III  of 
the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  it  is  convenient  to  repeat  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Article : 

V  Article  III. — The  territory  of  the  provinces  of 
Tacna  and  Arica,  bounded  in  the  north  by  the 
Eiver  Sama  from  its  source  in  the  Cordillera  on 
the  frontier  of  Bolivia  to  its  mouth  at  the  sea,  on 
the  south  by  the  ravine  and  River  Camarones,  on 
the  east  by  the  Republic  of  Bolivia,  and  on  the  west 
by  the  Pacific  Ocean,  shall  continue  in  the  posses- 
sion of  Chile  subject  to  Chilean  laws  and  authority 
during  a  period  of  ten  years,  to  be  reckoned  from 
the  date  of  the  ratification  of  the  present  Treaty  of 
Peace. 

"  After  the  expiration  of  that  term  a  plebiscitum 
will  decide  by  popular  vote  whether  the  territories 
of  the  above-mentioned  provinces  will  remain  defi- 
nitely under  the  dominion  and  sovereignty  of  Chile 
or  continue  to  form  part  of  Peru.  Either  of  the 
two  countries  to  which  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  may  remain  annexed,  will  pay  to  the  other 


28  The  Case  of  Chile. 

ten  millions  of  Chile  silver  dollars  or  Peruvian 
soles  of  the  same  weight  and  fineness. 

"A  special  protocol,  which  will  be  considered  as 
an  integral  portion  of  the  present  Treaty,  will  pre- 
scribe the  manner  in  which  the  plebiscitum  is  to 
be  carried  out,  and  the  terms  and  time  for  the  pay- 
ment of  the  ten  millions  by  the  nation  which  may 
remain  in  possession  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and 
Arica. ' ' 

This  Article  contains  three  provisions  in  respect  of 
Tacna- Arica,  viz:  (1)  the  ten-year  period;  (2)  the 
plebiscite  by  a  popular  vote;  (3)  the  payment  of  ten 
million  dollars. 

Several  years  after  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  went  into 
effect,  on  March  28,  1884,  negotiations  between  Chile 
and  Peru  began  for  the  consummation  of  the  special 
protocol  and  have  been  carried  on  intermittently  up  to 
the  Washington  Conference  of  1922.  It  will  be  our 
purpose  to  trace  these  negotiations  from  their  begin- 
ning with  a  view  to  determining  what  interpretation 
has  been  placed  by  the  parties  on  the  several  provi- 
sions of  Article  III  itemized  above. 

(a)  The  Ten-Year  Period. 

The  negotiations  in  regard  to  carrying  out  the  provi- 
sions of  Article  III  naturally  began  toward  the  end  of 
the  ten-year  period  mentioned  in  that  Article  which 
occurred  on  March  28,  1894.  It  appears  that  the  first 
discussions  relative  to  the  unfulfilled  conditions 
of  that  Article  were  carried  on  orally  at  Lima, 
and  at  Santiago  between  the  Peruvian  Minis- 
ter and  the  President  and  Minister  of  For- 
eign Affairs  of  Chile.  In  reporting  on  these  con- 
versations, the  Peruvian  Minister,  among  other  things, 


The  First  Question.  •  29 

stated  that  he  had  formulated  a  remonstrance  against 
legislation  pending  at  that  time  in  the  Chilean  Congress 
for  the  organization  of  departments  in  the  territories 
of  Tacna  and  Arica  and,  in  this  connection,  it  may  be 
noted  that  the  Peruvian  Minister  spoke  of  the 
"temporary  cession  of  Tacna  and  Arica"  to  Chile,  the 
temporary  character  of  the  cession  being  the  ground 
of  his  remonstrance.  (Appendix,  p.  23.) 

1893-1894  Negotiations. 

In  1893,  at  the  invitation  of  Peru,  a  series  of  confer- 
ences were  held  between  the  Peruvian  Minister  of  For- 
eign Affairs  and  the  Chilean  Minister  at  Lima,  extend- 
ing from  April  to  December  of  that  year,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  formulating  the  basis  of  the  special  protocol 
mentioned  in  Article  III.  Senor  Jimenez,  the  Peruvian 
Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  at  first  proposed  that  at 
the  expiration  of  the  ten-year  period  the  possession 
of  the  occupied  provinces  be  returned  to  Peru  * '  as  they 
belong  to  her  by  reason  of  rights  that  grow  out  of  her 
character  as  direct  sovereign,"  Chile  being  qualified 
in  the  Treaty  as  simple  possessor.  Chile  replied  that 
it  could  not  be  deduced  from  the  Treaty  that  these  ter- 
ritories must  be  returned  to  Peru  upon  the  mere  ex- 
piration of  the  period  of  ten  years  mentioned 
in  Article  III  which  granted  occupation  until 
the  obligations  of  the  Treaty  were  fulfilled — a 
grant  which  was  tantamount  to  a  territorial  ces- 
sion subject  to  the  condition  of  the  vote  of  the  in- 
habitants. (Appendix,  p.  36.)  The  result  was  that  Chile 
refused  to  agree  to  deliver  to  Peru  the  territories  of 
Tacna  and  Arica  on  March  28,  1894.  Thereupon,  Peru 
suggested  as  a  compromise  that  the  territories  be  de- 
livered on  that  date  to  a  third  power,  designated  by 
common  consent,  under  whose  auspices  the  plebiscite 
would  be  held.     To  this  proposal,  Chile  replied  that 


30  The  Case  of  Chile. 

she  could  not  accept  it  for  the  reason  that  she  had  a 
right  to  "occupy  the  disputed  territories  before  and 
after  the  plebiscite  and  until  Peru  should  fulfill  all  the 
obligations  that  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  imposed  on 
her."  (Appendix,  p.  39.) 

A  further  discussion  of  the  question  of  possession 
and  evacuation  was  continued  but  came  to  naught.  The 
result  of  the  conferences  was  the  so-called  Jimenez- 
Vial  Solar  Protocol  of  January  26,  1894.  This  Protocol 
did  not  really  settle  matters  as  it  left  the  conditions  of 
holding  the  plebiscite  for  future  agreement,  as  will  be 
seen  from  Article  1  of  the  Protocol,  which  reads  as 
follows : 

' *  The  plebiscite  will  be  effected  under  such  con- 
ditions of  reciprocity  as  the  two  Governments 
may  deem  necessary  to  assuring  an  honest  vote, 
one  that  shall  be  the  faithful  and  exact  expression 
of  the  popular  will  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and 
Arica."  (Appendix,  p.  52.) 

Nothing  ever  came  of  the  Jimenez-Vial  Solar  Pro- 
tocol, and  March  28,  1894,  the  end  of  the  ten-year  pe- 
riod referred  to  in  Article  III,  passed  with  Chile  still 
in  possession  of  Tacna  and  Arica  notwithstanding  the 
protest  of  Peru.  (Appendix,  p.  62.)  The  next  day, 
March  29th,  the  Chilean  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs 
replied  to  the  protest  of  Peru,  maintaining  the  posi- 
tion of  the  Chilean  Government  in  the  following  lan- 
guage : 

"You  are  aware  that,  prior  to  the  making  of 
the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  Chile  lawfully  occupied  the 
provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

"Hence,  if,  later,  a  Treaty  was  signed  in  which 
were  stated  the  conditions  under  which  the  defini- 
tive possession  of  those  territories  should  be  de- 


The  First  Question.  31 

cided,  it  is  evident  that,  until  those  conditions 
should  be  fulfilled,  or  until  there  should  be  an  ex- 
press agreement  that  should  settle  things  other- 
wise, occupation  ought  invariably  to  continue  to  be 
maintained  by  Chile.  *  *  * 

"I  deem  it  opportune,  besides,  to  reproduce, 
next,  paragraph  I  of  a  memorandum  that  His  Ex- 
cellency Seiior  Jimenez  placed  in  the  hands  of 
the  Plenipotentiary  of  Chile  in  Peru,  which 
shows  the  sense  and  scope  of  the  bases  of  an  ar- 
rangement proposed  by  the%  former  in  his  official 
communication  of  January  26  last,  and  leaves  the 
way  open  to  the  negotiators : 

"Sehor  Vial  Solar  sought  to  have  in- 
cluded among  the  bases  a  basis  that  would  em- 
body the  idea  that  the  territories  should  remain, 
during  the  plebiscite,  in  the  same  state  as  that 
in  which  they  are  today.  I  told  him  that  it 
would  be  unnecessary  to  say  so,  for  only  in 
order  to  change  the  person  of  the  occupant, 
would  an  express  declaration  be  necessary. 
Senor  Minister  deemed  my  view  of  the  case 
just." 

"My  Government,  therefore,  Mr.  Minister, 
maintains,  in  this  respect,  the  opinions  that  it  has 
previously  expressed  as  to  Chilean  possession  of 
the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica  until  the  settle- 
ment that  must  be  sought  in  the  celebration  of  the 
plebiscite.' '  (Appendix,  pp.  65,  67;  see  also  Ap- 
pendix, p.  59.) 

1895-1896  Negotiations. 

After  this  exchange  of  views  the  question  of  posses- 
sion did  not  come  up  for  direct  discussion  in  the  nego- 
tiations for  some  time,  as  the  countries  were  occupied 
in  trying  to  reach  an  agreement  on  the  special  proto- 
col.   In  the  autumn  of  1895  the  chief  matter  under  dis- 


32  The  Case  of  Chile. 

cussion  was  the  guaranty  for  the  payment  of  the  ten 
millions  by  Peru  in  case  the  plebiscite  should  go 
against  her.  Chile  insisted  that  foresight  counseled 
that  some  guaranty  should  be  agreed  upon  in  addition 
to  the  solemn  pledges  and  the  signatures  of  the  parties. 
To  this  Peru  replied  as  indicated  in  the  following  ex- 
tract from  the  minutes  of  a  conference  between  the 
negotiators  on  October  8,  1895 : 

"  The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  [of 
Peru]  denied  that  it  was  necessary  to  establish 
other  guaranties  than  those  that  might  be  deduced 
from  the  very  convention  to  which  recourse  should 
be  had  in  fixing  the  conditions  of  the  plebiscite  and 
from  the  signatures  on  which  that  Treaty  would 
depend;  that,  in  respect  of  the  obligation  of  the 
Government  of  Peru,  Chile  was  amply  guaranteed 
by  the  possession  of  the  pledge,  that  is,  the  terri- 
tory of  Tacna  and  Arica,  *  *  V  (Appendix,  pp. 
85-86.) 

From  this  statement  it  must  be  concluded  that  Peru 
had  waived  her  interpretation  of  Article  III  that  Chile 
was  not  entitled  to  possession  after  March  28,  1894. 
No  other  interpretation  can  be  placed  upon  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Peruvian  negotiator.  In  spite  of  this 
waiver,  however,  Peru  saw  fit  to  raise  the  point  again. 
In  the  later  discussion  Chile  made  this  reply  as  ap- 
pears from  the  minutes  of  October  30,  1895 : 

*  i  *  *  *  However,  the  return  of  the  territories,  in 
case  of  Peru's  being  favored,  ought  to  coincide 
with  the  payment  of  the  indemnity,  and  this  inter- 
pretation has  in  its  support  a  reason  of  much 
weight.  *  *  *  "When  Chile  should  have  returned  the 
territory,  she  would  have  fulfilled  the  totality  of 
the  obligations  that  the  Treaty  imposed  on  her ;  in 
the  meanwhile,  Peru  would  have  done  no  more 


The  First  Question.  33 

than  give  security  for  the  later  fulfillment  of  hers. 
Since  this  is  unnatural,  concluded  the  Min- 
ister of  Chile,  neither  can  that  which  leads  to  such 
a  result  be  the  true  interpretation  of  the  Treaty, 
and  the  fulfillment  of  correlative  obligations  under 
conditions  of  strict  equality  for  both  parties  ought 
to  seem  to  be  the  more  acceptable. ' '  (Appendix, 
pp.  90-91.) 

In  a  subsequent  note  of  February  10,  1896,  the  Chil- 
ean Minister  restated  this  thought  as  follows : 

a*  *  *  This  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  Chile, 
in  order  to  acquire  those  provinces,  or  Peru,  in 
order  to  recover  them,  must  submit  to  a  double 
condition :  that  of  a  popular  vote,  which  shall  give 
them  to  her,  and  that  of  paying  ten  million  pesos. 
These  two  conditions,  incorporated,  as  they  are, 
in  the  same  article  of  the  Treaty,  are  inseparable 
and  do  not  admit  of  fictitious  distinctions  of  pri- 
ority or  of  importance.  *  *  *  It  is  impossible  to 
think  of  the  execution  of  the  Treaty  apart  from  the 
fulfillment  of  the  two  conjointly."  (Appendix, 
p.  120.) 

Any  other  interpretation,  the  Chilean  negotiator  as- 
serted, would  have  this  result : 

"*  *  *  Chile  would  return  to  Peru  the  provinces 
of  Tacna  and  Arica,  and  Peru  would  confine  her- 
self to  receiving  them ;  Chile  would  thus  have  ful- 
filled the  obligation  she  contracted,  by  respecting 
the  will  of  those  provinces  manifested  in  the  plebi- 
scite ;  and  Peru  would  leave  postponed  until  better 
times  fulfillment  of  hers,  which  would  consist  in 
paying  ten  million  pesos  for  their  redemption. 
*  *  *  In  a  word,  Chile  would  have  carried  out  the 
Treaty  in  so  far  as  she  is  concerned,  and  Peru 
would  not  have  done  so."  (Appendix,  p.  122.) 


34  The  Case  of  Chile. 

In  the  minutes  of  December  31,  1895,  Peru  pro- 
posed that  the  ten  millions  be  paid  at  the  rate  of 
one  million  a  year  secured  by  the  customs  of  the  port 
of  Callao,  and  the  Foreign  Minister  added: 

"and  all  this  without  prejudice  to  Chile's  retain- 
ing the  territories  occupied  and  receiving  the  reve- 
nues from  the  custom-houses  in  them."  (Appen- 
dix, p.  96.) 

In  a  subsequent  note  of  February  3,  1896,  the  Minis- 
ter of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Peru  confirmed  his  earlier 
views  in  these  words : 

<<#  *  •  gj^  [peru]  aiso  testifies  that  she  is  pre- 
paring to  make  the  payment  in  case  the  result  of 
the  plebiscite  shall  be  favorable  to  her;  and,  al- 
though the  recovery  of  those  territories  is  not  sub- 
*  ject  to  the  payment  of  the  ten  millions,  she  agrees 
that  Chile  shall  retain  the  pledge  while  she  is 
effecting  the  delivery  of  the  ransom.' '  (Appen- 
dix, p.  104.) 

1898  Negotiations. 

In  1898  Peru  sent  a  Special  Envoy  to  Chile,  the 
Vice-President  of  the  Republic,  Senor  G.  E.  Billing- 
hurst,  for  the  purpose  of  negotiating  the  special 
protocol  required  by  Article  III  of  the  Treaty 
of  Ancon.  He  held  several  conferences  with 
the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Chile  in 
February  and  March  of  that  year,  which  resulted  in 
the  so-called  Billinghurst-Latorre  Protocol  of  April  9, 
1898.  The  Protocol  embodied  for  the  first  time  a  com- 
plete arrangement  for  the  holding  of  the  plebiscite  and 
for  the  paying  of  the  ten  million  dollars.  (Appendix 
p.  131.)  It  was  agreed  to  arbitrate  two  questions,  who 
shall  vote  in  the  plebiscite,  and  whether  the  vote  shall 
be  secret.    It  will  be  observed  that  the  two  conditions 


The  First  Question.  35 

precedent  to  the  recession  of  Tacna  and  Arica  were 
thus  disposed  of  conjointly,  which  had  been  the  course 
uniformly  and  repeatedly  advocated  by  Chile.  No 
provision,  however,  was  made  for  the  evacuation  of 
the  territory  before  or  during  the  plebiscitary  vote 
or  before  the  payment  of  the  ten  millions,  and,  there- 
fore, it  is  apparent  that  the  parties  agreed  that  the 
status  quo  in  the  territory  should  be  maintained  until 
these  conditions  had  been  fully  met. 

1900-1901  Negotiations  and  Correspondence. 

Final  action  by  the  Chilean  Congress  on  the  Billing- 
hurst-Latorre  Protocol  was  delayed,  although  it  was 
laid  before  the  Congress  in  1898  and  although  the 
Chilean  Government,  urged  the  approval  of  the  agree- 
ment by  that  body.  Meanwhile  the  matter  of  the  pos- 
session of  Tacna  and  Arica  was  in  abeyance,  as  stated 
in.  the  note  of  the  Peruvian  Minister  of  May  10,  1900 : 

' 'He  continued  that,  with  the  drawing  up  of  the 
protocol,  several  questions  of  importance  had 
fallen  into  abeyance,  and  among  them,  the  de- 
mands of  Peru  as  to  the  occupation  by  Chile  of  a 
part  of  the  province  of  Tarata,  and  the  objection 
opportunely  made  by  the  former  to  the  occupation 
by  the  latter  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica 
after  -the  ten  years  provided  for  in  the  Treaty  of 
Ancon.  These  and  others  that  present  themselves 
today — such  as  the  demand  in  respect  of  the 
schools  of  Tacna  and  Arica  under  the  direction  of 
Peruvian  teachers — would  be  implicitly  settled  by 
the  definitive  sanctioning  of  the  protocol."  {Ap- 
pendix, p.  152.) 

It  is  admissible,  therefore,  to  point  out  that  in  the 
same  way,  the  Protocol  and  Supplementary  Agree- 
ment of  July  20, 1922,  under  which  the  present  Arbitra- 


36  The  Case  of  Chile. 

tion  is  proceeding,  holds  in  abeyance  all  irrelevant 
questions  which  have  heretofore  been  matters  of  dis- 
pute, such  as  the  possession  of  the  territory  by  Chile. 
In  fact,  as  we  shall  see,  the  Protocol  and  Act  expressly 
provide  for  such  possession  in  the  same  manner  and  to 
the  same  extent  as  theretofore  enjoyed  and  exercised 
by  Chile. 

The  question  of  the  possession  and  sovereignty  of 
Chile  was  discussed  with  Peru  not  only  from  the  point 
of  view  of  the  exercise  of  the  rights  of  a  possessor  of 
the  sovereignty  after  the  expiration  of  the  ten-year 
period  mentioned  in  Article  III,  but  also  from  the  point 
of  view  of  the  manner  in  which  those  sovereign  rights 
were  exercised.  {Appendix,  pp.  21,  179,  202,  204,  171, 
210,  225,  241,  250.  Peru  complained  of  the  administra- 
tion of  the  territories  in  respect  of  the  location  of  ad- 
ministrative boundaries,  the  conduct  of  schools,  the 
grant  of  concessions,  the  construction  of  railways  and 
irrigation  works,  the  control  of  the  press,  the  location 
of  the  courts  and  the  military  headquarters,  the  reduc- 
tion of  customs  duties,  and  other  matters  of  domestic 
concern.  In  one  of  these  complaints  the  Peruvian  Min- 
ister in  his  note  of  November  14,  1900,  made  the  fol- 
lowing statement  as  to  the  possession  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  by  Chile  until  the  plebiscite  should  be  held : 

"To  simple  occupants,  as  Chile  is  in  this  case, 
the  right  to  act  as  complete  master  is  not  given, 
nor  is  the  right  to  compromise  the  territory  for  the 
future  which  does  not  belong  to  them  accrue  to 
them.  Immediately  after  having  signed  the  Treaty 
of  Peace,  it  could  have  made  temporary  con- 
cessions of  a  certain  order  which  would  not  amount 
to  the  alienation  of  the  soil;  then,  there  was  as- 
sured Chile  the  exercise  of  a  limited  dominion  for 
ten  years ;  but  today,  the  subsistence  of  its  author- 
ity is  subject  to  the  contingencies  of  a  plebiscite 


The  First  Question-.  37 

of  early  realization,  the  concessions  of  dominion 
can  not  be  explained,  and  in  no  case  can  they  ex- 
tend, their  effects  beyond  the  time  of  occupation. ' ' 
(Appendix,  p.  190.) 

Chile  replied  to  the  complaints  of  Peru  basing  her 
right  to  take  such  measures  upon  the  authority  ex- 
pressly granted  to  her  by  the  clause  of  Article  III 
providing  that 

"Tacna  and  Arica  *  *  *  shall  continue  in  the 
possession  of  Chile  subject  to  Chilean  laws  and 
authority  *  *  *,*' 

and  disclaiming  that  the  measures  have  any  character 
of  hostility  or  violence  attributed  to  them.  In  the  dis- 
cussion of  these  matters  Chile,  January  19, 1901,  stated 
her  position  as  to  the  scope  of  her  authority  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  Tacna  and  Arica  as  follows : 

"Your  Excellency  seems  to  forget  that  Clause 
III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  subjected  to  Chilean 
legislation  the  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  and, 
that,  in  consequence,  our  laws  prevail  there  with- 
.  out  any  limitation  whatsoever  and  in  the  same 
manner  as  in  the  other  provinces  of  the  Eepublic. 

"Your  Excellency  considers  that  Chile  may  not 
perform  acts  that  presuppose  the  complete  exer- 
cise of  sovereignty. 

"According  to  such  a  theory,  this  Government 
could  not  administer  justice,  impose  taxes  or 
perform  in  Tacna  and  Arica  any  of  the  acts 
that  pertain  properly  to  the  exercise  of  sover- 
eignty, and  therefore  it  could  not  assume 
charge  of  the  administrative  services  in  those  ter- 
ritories, which,  in  such  a  case,  would  be  abandoned 
to  their  own  fate. 

"Among  the  faculties  of  administrating  a  ter- 
ritory, pursuant  to  the  laws  of  the  country,  is  in- 
cluded that  of  making  concessions  of  mines  and 


38  T«he  Case  of  Chile. 

deposits  of  mineral  substances,  and  that  of  rent- 
ing or  disposing  of  fiscal  lands  for  exploitation, 
cultivation  or  colonization. 

"To  stimulate  the  progress  and  development  of 
production,  wealth  and  commerce  in  the  territories 
subject  to  the  administration  and  laws  of  Chile 
is  one  of  the  fundamental  duties  of  the  Govern- 
ment. 

i '  Might  it  be  affirmed  that  what  the  Governments 
desired  when  they  signed  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  was 
to  keep  Tacna  and  Arica  in  a  state  of  stagnation 
by  disregarding  their  needs,  their  industries,  their 
natural  and  progressive  development? 

"  Furthermore,  what  evil  could  result  from 
concessions  for  exploiting  mineral  substances, 
which  all  private  individuals,  without  dis- 
tinction of  nationality,  may  solicit  in  Tacna  and 
Arica,  as  well  as  in  any  other  department  of  Chile? 

"Can  there  be  anything  in  this  that  would  con- 
tradict the  spirit  and  letter  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon 
or  that  would  in  the  slightest  degree  wound  the 
national  sentiment  of  Peru? 

"The  undersigned  holds  there  is  not,  and  on  the 
contrary,  he  considers  that  whatever  may  be  the 
definitive  fate  of  the  territories  whose  nationality 
will  be  settled  by  the  stipulated  plebiscite,  it  is 
Chile  's  duty,  and  one  that  she  will  be  able  duly  to 
perform,  to  give  thought  to  the  means  which,  ac- 
cording to  our  legal  regime,  she  deems  adequate 
to  the  proper  administration  of  the  departments 
of  Tacna  and  Arica,  the  well-being  of  their  inhabi- 
tants and  the  prosperity  and  progress  of  those 
territories."  (Appendix,  pp.  215-217.) 

"The  explanation  contained  in  this  note  in  re- 
spect of  each  of  the  charges  formulated  by  Your 
Excellency  show  clearly  that  all  the  administrative 
measures  adopted  or  on  the  way  to  adoption  by 
my  Government  are  within  the  constitutional  and 
legal  faculties  of  the  executive.  • 

"None  of  these  measures  implies  hostility  to  or 
disregard  of,  the  rights  of  Peru,  or  runs  counter 
to  the  stipulations  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon.     The 


The  Fiest  Question.  39 

most  of  them  are  designed  to  stimulate  the  de- 
velopment of  the  territory  and  to  secure  the  well- 
being  of  the  inhabitants  and  to  assure  their  pros- 
perity and  future  aggrandizement. 

"By  these  legitimate  means — applying  her  laws 
and  keeping  within  the  realm  assigned  to  her  by 
the  Treaty  of  Ancon — Chile  is  seeking  to  strength- 
en her  chances  for  the  definitive  dominion  of 
Tacna  and  Arica. 

"She  will  spare  no  effort  to  fulfill  the  mission 
imposed  on  her  in  respect  of  those  territories  by 
the  treaty  of  Ancon,  in  a  manner  that  will  render 
her  worthy  of  the  confidence  and  gratitude  of  their 
inhabitants. 

"While  respecting  the  rights  and  the  legitimate 
expectations  of  Peru,  my  Government  will  continue 
to  minister  to  the  interests  and  needs  of  the  pres- 
ent departments  of  Tacna  and  Arica  to  the  full 
measure  of  her  powers,  and  the  contingency  that 
they  may  pass  later  under  the  dominion  of  Peru, 
together  with  all  the  benefits  that  have  accrued  to 
them  from  the  well-meaning  and  progressive  un- 
dertakings of  the  Chilean  Administration,  will  not 
diminish  its  activity. 

i '  The  Government  of  Chile  has  cherished  no  .de- 
sign of  postponing  indefinitely  the  solution  of  the 
problem  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  nor  may  Your  Ex- 
cellency 's  Government  justly  charge  it  with  having 
done  so. 

* '  The  agreement  about  the  Billinghurst-Latorre 
Protocol  is  the  most  conclusive  proof  that  this 
Government  has  carried  its  good  will  in  respect  of 
Peru  beyond  what  was  possible  within  the  consti- 
tutional limitations  within  which  it  would  have 
exercised  its  action  in  order  to  arrive  at  an  under- 
standing with  the  Government  of  Peru. 

"Your  Excellency  is  aware  that  the  protocol 
mentioned  encountered  insuDerable  obstacles 
among  the  membership  of  the  Honorable  Chamber 
of  Deputies,  when  it  was  submitted  to  its  consider- 
ation in  1896,  and  that  the  efforts  made  by  the 


40  The  Case  of  Chile. 

Government  to  obtain  its  approval  have  been  in- 
efficacious. 

"As  the  discussion  of  the  protocol  has  been  in- 
definitely postponed,  different  circumstances,  in- 
dependent of  the  will  of  the  Government,  have  de- 
layed a  pronouncement  by  that  branch  of  the  legis- 
lative power,  thus  producing  the  consequent  para- 
lyzation  of  the  negotiations  subject  to  the  sanction- 
ing of  that  protocol  by  the  Chilean  Congress.' ■ 
(Appendix,  pp.  222,  224.) 

The  position  of  Peru  in  regard  to  the  exercise  of 
authority  by  Chile  in  the  possessed  territories  is  stated 
thus  in  her  reply  of  January  30,  1901 : 

"In  no  case,  however,  even  in  solving  a  problem 
of  internal  management,  is  it  permitted  to  disre- 
gard the  international  character  of  this  question. 
The  authority  of  Chile,  even  in  respect  of  internal 
affairs,  may  not  be  exercised  in  the  territories 
north  of  the  river  and  gorge  of  Camarones  to  the 
same  extent  as  in  those  that  lie  to  the  south  of  the 
said  line.  The  former  are  subject  to  a  simple  tem- 
porary 'occupation,  and  the  latter  to  a  definitive 
dominion ;  over  the  former  it  has  been  lawful  for 
Chile  to  exercise  only  the  rights  of  the  possessor 
and  usufructuary,  while  over  the  latter  she  may 
exercise  the  powers  inherent  to  complete  sei- 
gniory ;  in  the  former  she  has  not  been  able  to,  and 
she  cannot,  make  perpetual  concessions  of  public 
lands  or  of  wealth  related  to  the  soil ;  and  in  the 
latter  she  has  been  able  to  and  can ;  in  the  former, 
political  laws  have  no  application  through  which 
is  expressed  the  exercise  of  a  permanent  and 
definitive  authority,  such  as  those  relative  to  the 
election  of  the  President  of  the  Eepublic,  senators 
and  deputies ;  and,  in  the  latter,  they  have ;  in  the 
former,  in  short,  Chile  acts  as  a  simple  adminis- 
trator with  limited  faculties ;  and  in  the  latter,  as 
an  owner  and  sovereign.     *     *     * 

"As  a  consequence  Your  Excellency  says  'our 


The  First  Question.  41 

laws  prevail  there  without  any  limitation  whatso- 
ever and  in  the  same  manner  as  in  the  other  prov- 
inces of  the  Republic. '  This  is  not  wholly  correct. 
The  authority  of  Chile  is  subordinate,  in  its  exer- 
cise, to  two  conditions  that  restrict  it :  to  her  char- 
acter as  a  mere  precarious  possessor  and  to  the 
duty  of  adjusting  her  acts  to  Chilean  legislation. 
The  laws  of  Chile  exist  in  Tacna  and  Arica,  not  to 
uphold  the  rights  of  an  absolute  and  permanent 
sovereignty,  but  the  rights  of  a  temporary  occupa- 
tion. Just  as  in  the  private  realm,  the  simple  hold- 
er for  a  limited  time  possesses  faculties  much  more 
limited  than  the  proprietor,  although  both  are  sub- 
ject to  the  dominion  of  the  same  legislation,  so 
also  in  the  present  case  Chile  has  over  Tacna  and 
Arica,  as  a  mere  possessor,  rights  much  more  re- 
stricted than  over  her  own  territories,  in  spite  of 
the  fact  that  both  are  governed  by  an  identical 
legislation. 

"The  signatory  nations  of  the  Treaty  of  A  neon 
when  they  subjected  the  authority  of  the  occupant 
to  Chilean  legislation,  purposed  to  prevent  the  ex- 
ercise of  an  absolute  and  arbitrary  power;  but 
they  did  not  entertain  the  design  of  constituting 
definitively  a  new  sovereignty;  they  referred  the 
resolution  of  this  point  to  a  subsequent  plebiscite. 
In  a  word,  Chile,  as  a  simple  possessor,  and  not  as 
an  owner  and  sovereign,  was  subjected  to  Chilean 
legislation.  Hence  she  could  administer  as  well  as 
use  and  enjoy  things  until  1894;  but  she  might 
never  dispose  of  them.  Therefore  she  might  grant 
mines  and  public  lands  validly  only  until  the 
date  indicated ;  but  she  might  not  and  she  may  not 
grant  perpetual  and  absolute  dominion  over 
them."  (Appendix,  pp.  231-234.) 

On  these  grounds  Peru  objected  to  the  application 
of  "Chilean  laws  and  authority"  (the  words  of  Article 
III)  to  the  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica  in  respect 
of  the  matters  mentioned  above  which  had  been  the 
subjects  of  complaint  by  Peru. 


42  The  Case  of  Chile. 

Chile  replied,  February  18, 1901,  to  these  contentions 
of  Peru  point  by  point  in  the  following  manner : 

'  *  The  other  measures  that  Your  Excellency  calls 
'Chileanization'  and  which,  nevertheless,  belong 
properly  to  the  administrative  action  of  the  Ex- 
ecutive, were  all  analized  in  detail  and  sufficiently 
explained  in  my  communication  of  January  19. 
Nevertheless,  Your  Excellency  protests  against  all 
of  them  and  remonstrates  against  them  to  this 
Chancellery  because  he  considers  them  beyond  the 
limits  of  the  restricted  and  precarious  sovereignty, 
which,  in  Your  Excellency's  judgment,  Chile  exer- 
cises in  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  and  be- 
cause the  right  of  occupation  granted  her  by  the 
Treaty  of  Peace  of  1883  had  legally  terminated. 

"I  must  consider  separately  this  double  objec- 
tion, which  does  not  rest  on  any  of  the  clauses  of 
the  Treaty,  the  only  law  that  regulates  and  defines 
the  obligations  and  rights  of  the  countries  that 
signed  it  to  establish  the  reign  of  peace  in  them. 
Chile  obtained  two  important  concessions  in  the 
Treaty  of  Peace  celebrated  with  Peru  in  respect 
of  the  territories  that  constituted  the  former  Peru- 
vian provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

"The  first  of  them  consisted  in  the  right  to  re- 
tain in  her  power  those  territories,  which,  until 
that  moment,  she  had  occupied  under  a  war  title ; 
and  the  second,  in  the  faculty  of  administering 
them  in  harmony  with  her  own  laws,  which  were 
to  continue  in  force  and  thereafter,  instead  of  the 
laws  of  Peru. 

"The  political  and  legal  condition  of  the  former 
Peruvian  provinces,  whose  especial  regime  was  de- 
termined in  an  unmistakable  manner  by  the  Treaty 
of  Ancon,  was  consequently  modified. 

"In  this  famous  Treaty  was  granted  to  Chile  a 
greater  extent  of  rights  and  expectations  since  on 
her  was  bestowed  the  occupation  of  the  territory 
and  its  administration,  without  other  limitation 
than  that  of  governing  in  harmony  with  her  own 


The  First  Question.  43 

laws,  and  to  Peru  was  granted  only  the  expecta- 
tion of  recovering  provinces  which  the  conse- 
quences of  an  unfortunate  war  had  separated  from 
the  dominion  of  her  authorities  and  her  laws,  in 
a  plebiscite  that  would  determine  the  nationality 
of  those  provinces. 

' '  Granted  this  fundamental  antecedent,  it  is  evi- 
dent and  unquestionable  that  Chile  has  the  right  to 
perform  all  the  political  and  administrative  acts 
that  are  authorized  by  the  national  laws.  If 
Chilean  laws  are  the  sole  manifestation  and  ex- 
ercise of  the  sovereignty  of  Chile,  it  is  also  evident 
and  unquestionable  that  in  this  case  it  is  not  an 
affair  of  an  incomplete  or  restricted  sovereignty, 
in  spite  of  the  circumstance  that  the  rights  of  Chile 
are  subordinated,  in  respect  of  their  future  ex- 
ercise, to  the  holding  of  a  plebiscite. 

"It  is  indubitable  then  that,  according  to  the 
regime  established  in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  Chile 
preserves  her  character  of  sovereign  in  Tacna  and 
Arica  until  the  plebiscitary  vote  would  modify  the 
present  situation. 

"The  full  exercise  of  sovereignty  is  not  incom- 
patible with  the  eventuality  that  the  territory  in 
which  it  is  exercised  may  pass  later  under  the  do- 
minion of  another  nation.  Because  the  mere  fact 
that  the  territory  of  Tacna  and  Arica  are  subject 
to  Chilean  legislation,  the  exercise  of  Chilean 
sovereignty,  without  the  limitations  that  Ypur  Ex- 
cellency attempts  to  establish,  was  recognized. 

"I  now  proceed  to  examine  the  point  relative  to 
the  right  of  Chile  to  continue  to  occupy  the  terri- 
tories of  Tacna  and  Arica  after  the  expiration  of 
the  ten  years  designated  in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon 
for  the  holding  of  the  plebiscite.     *     •     • 

"It  is  unquestionable' that  the  Treaty  of  Ancon 
either  did  not  foresee  the  contingency  that,  after 
the  expiration  of  the  period  of  ten  years,  the  pleb- 
iscite would  not  be  held,  or  that  it  did  not  desire, 
in  that  emergency,  to  modifv  the  situation  in  the 
territories  the  occupation  of  which  was  granted 
to  Chile.    On  either  hypothesis  it  is  necessary  to 


44  The  Case  of  Chile. 

come  to  the  conclusion  that  nothing  authorizes  the 
demand  that  Chile  deliver  to  Peru  territories  that 
may  only  be  acquired  by  virtue  of  a  plebiscitary 
vote  that  shall  be  favorable  to  her,  since  this  would 
simply  be  equivalent  to  assuming  as  settled  at 
once,  in  her  favor,  the  question  that  is  today  in 
dispute  between  the  Chancelleries  of  Chile  and 
Peru  and  that  affects  the  great  interests  of  both 
countries. 

"In  order  that  the  delivery  of  the  territory  oc- 
cupied by  Chile  may  be  effected,  it  is  necessary 
that  the  condition  indicated  in  the  Treaty  shall  be 
fulfilled,  it  is  necessary  to  determine  previously  the 
definitive  nationality  of  the  said  territory,  or, 
rather,  it  is  necessary  that  there  shall  be  a  new 
agreement  between  the  interested  Governments 
that  shall  modify  the  provisions  of  the  Treaty  of 
Peace. 

"The  acceptance  of  the  theory  upheld  by  Your 
Excellency  would  be  tantamount  to  annulling,  leav- 
ing without  effect,  or  at  least  altering  substantial- 
ly those  provisions,  and  suppressing,  for  the  ex- 
clusive benefit  of  Peru,  the  advantages  that  they 
conferred  on  Chile,  to  strengthen  her  claims  to 
the  definitive  dominion  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

"Indeed,  if  consideration  be  given  to  what  may 
have  been  the  purpose  kept  in  view  by  the  negotia- 
tors of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  in  conceding  to  Chile 
the  right  to  continue  to  occupy  the  territory  of 
Tacna  and  Arica  and  of  administering  it  in  pur- 
suance of  her  laws,  it  may  easily  be  understood 
that  my  country  could  not  rob  herself  of  these 
rights,  just  as  it  has  not  shirked  the  obligations 
that  are  inherent  to  their  exercise,  unless  an  ex- 
press provisions  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  should  so 
establish  or  unless  a  new  convention,  as  solemn  as 
that  Treaty,  should  be  adopted."  (Appendix,  pp. 
243-246.) 

With  the  arguments,  from  which  the  foregoing  are 
extracts,  presented  on  both  sides,  the  negotiations  and 


The  First  Question.  45 

correspondence  of  1900-1901  terminated  without  any 
agreement  having  been  reached  as  to  the  points  in  con- 
troversy. 

Treaty  of  1902. 

The  next  incident  in  the  history  of  the  possession  of 
sovereignty  by  Chile  in  Tacna  and  Arica  is  the  Boun- 
dary Treaty  between  Peru  and  Bolivia  signed  Sep- 
tember 23,  1902.  Article  2  of  this  treaty  reads  as 
follows  (italics  not  in  the  original  text)  : 

,  "Article  2.  The  high  contracting  parties  like- 
wise agree  to  proceed,  in  accordance  with  the  con- 
ditions of  the  present  treaty,  to  the  demarcation 
of  the  line  which  separates  the  Peruvian  provinces 
of  Tacna  and  Arica  from  the  Bolivian  province  of 
Carangas,  immediately  after  the  said  provinces 
are  once  more  under  the  sovereignty  of  Peru." 
(Appendix,  p.  686.) 

It  may  be  observed  that  this  treaty,  which  was  duly 
ratified  by  both  parties,  without  doubt  expresses  the 
official  view  of  the  Government  of  Peru  as  to  the  sover- 
eignty over  Tacna  and  Arica  in  1902.  In  this  treaty 
Peru  admits  formally  that  the  sovereignty  over  Tacna 
and  Arica  is  not  located  in  her.  The  only  other  alter- 
native is  that  the  sovereignty  is  vested  in  Chile,  for 
Chile  and  Peru  are  the  only  disputants  as  to  the  sover- 
eignty of  these  territories.  This  treaty  then,  contain- 
ing a  statement  in  the  nature  of  an  admission  against 
interest  on  the  part  of  Peru,  is  strong  evidence  as  to 
the  fact  that  the  legal  sovereignty  over  Tacna  and 
Arica  rests  and  has  rested  since  March  28,  1884,  in 
Chile. 

1905-1907  Correspondence  and  Negotiations. 

No  negotiations  regarding  the  execution  of  Article 
III  were  carried  on  between  1901  and  1905  for  the  rea- 


46  The  Case  of  Chile. 

son  that  Peru  suspended  diplomatic  relations  with 
Chile  during  this  period.  Meantime  the  Treaty  of 
Peace  between  Chile  and  Bolivia  had  been  signed  on 
October  20,  1904,  which  treaty  replaced  the  Truce 
Agreement  of  April  4,  1884.  (Appendix,  pp.  345,  688.) 

On  February  18,  1905,  Peru  protested  against  the 
provisions  of  this  treaty  which  fixed  the  boundaries  be- 
tween Bolivia  and  Tacna-Arica  and  Tar  at  a,  and  which 
also  stipulated  for  the  construction  of  the  Arica-La  Paz 
Eailway,  the  grant  of  free  transit  of  goods,  etc.  This 
protest  was  based  essentially  on  the  same  ground 
theretofore  advanced  by  Peru,  namely  that  such  acts 
on  the  part  of  Chile  exceeded  her  powers  as  temporary 
possessor  and  sovereign  of  Tacna  and  Arica.  (Appen- 
dix, p.  347.) 

On  March  15,  1905,  Chile  replied  to  the  protests  of 
Peru,  pointing  out  that  the  Treaty  of  1904  with  Bolivia 
proceeded  in  harmony  with  the  sovereign  rights  ac- 
corded to  Chile  under  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  in  respect  of 
Tacna  and  Arica.  The  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of 
Chile  said : 

"In  truth,  Your  Excellency  is  not  unaware  that 
a  portion  of  territory  belongs  to  the  State,  which 
with  adequate  title,  is  empowered  to  occupy  it  and 
subject  it  to  its  authorities  and  laws ;  and,  as  the 
third  Article  of  said  Treaty  provides  that  the  ter- 
ritory of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica  'will 
continue  to  be  possessed  by  Chile  and  subject  to 
Chilean  legislation  and  authorities,'  it  is  evident 
that  Peru  ceded  to  Chile  the  free  and  absolute  sov- 
ereignty over  these  provinces,  without  any  limita- 
tion as  to  their  exercise,  and  limited  only  in  repect 
of  their  duration  by  the  event  that  a  plebiscite — 
which  ought  to  be  called  after  the  passage  of  ten 
years,  reckoned  from  the  ratification  of  that  Treaty 
— should  so  declare. 


The  Fiest  Question.  47 

"The  period  of  ten  years  set  by  the  Treaty  of 
Ancon  had  no  other  object  than  to  insure  to  Chile 
a  minimum  of  time  in  the  exercise  of  sovereignty, 
but  it  signifies  in  no  wise  that  during  it  there  ought 
necessarily  to  be  an  appeal  to  the  popular  delibera- 
tion.    *     *     * 

"After  the  expiration  of  this  period,  Article  III 
adds,  'a  plebiscite  will  decide  by  popular  vote, 
whether  the  territory  of  the  aforementioned  prov- 
inces of  Tacna  and  Arica  shall  remain  definitively 
under  the  dominion  and  sovereignty  of  Chile,  or 
whether  it  shall  continue  to  be  a  part  of  the  Peru- 
vian territory. ' 

' l  In  order  that  this  territory  may  remain  defini- 
tively under  the  dominion  and  sovereignty  of  Chile, 
this  country  must  have  exercised  and  must  con- 
tinue to  exercise  these  rights  temporarily.  The 
word  'continue'  which  Your  Excellency  under- 
scores in  his  communication,  does  not  refer  to  the 
situation  prior  to  the  Treaty,  but  to  the  one  that 
may  occur  after  the  plebiscite  shall  have  been  con- 
voked, since,  otherwise,  there  would  exist  a  contra- 
diction in  the  terms  of  Article  III,  of  which  those 
that  drafted  it  could  not  have  been  guilty. 

"The  rights  of  Chile  and  of  Peru,  in  respect  of 
the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  as  they  are  de- 
fined in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  are  therefore  quite 
different:  the  right  of  Chile  is  present  and  com- 
plete, but  not  definitive ;  the  right  of  Peru  is  mere- 
ly eventual."  (Appendix,  pp.  356-357.) 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  also  pointed  out 
that  the  treaty  with  Bolivia  had  gone  no  further  in  re- 
gard to  determining  the  boundaries  of  Tacna-Arica 
than  the  corresponding  treaty  of  Peru  with  Bolivia  of 
1902. 

The  discussion  continued  in  further  correspondence 
hetween  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Chile  and 
the  Minister  of  Peru  at  Santiago  without  reaching  any 


48  The  Case  op  Chile. 

definite  conclusion  or  advancing  any  new  points  of 
view.  (Appendix,  pp.  362,  369.)  It  may  be  noted  in 
passing,  however,  that  the  Minister  of  Peru  admitted 
the  suspension  of  Peruvian  sovereignty  over  Tacna 
and  Arica  in  his  note  of  April  25,  1905,  in  these  words : 

'  *  Your  Excellency's  enlightened  judgment  will 
easily  comprehend  that  in  the  Treaty  mentioned 
sovereignty  and  dominion  over  the  provinces  under 
discussion  belong  to  Peru,  and  that  she  has  not 
renounced  them,  although  it  is  recognized  that  the 
exercise  of  them  is  suspended,  as  is  the  reality  of 
facts,  as  a  consequence  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon. 

"In  the  political  realm,  as  in  the  civil,  the  exer- 
cise of  a  right  may  be  in  suspense,  in  divers  cases, 
but  the  right  in  itself  does  not  disappear,  save 
for  causes  that  legally  extinguish  or  transfer  it. 

* '  On  the  other  hand,  there  can  be  no  exercise  of 
a  right  that  is  not  possessed,  either  by  a  title  of 
one's  own  or  by  transfer  by  the  one  to  whom  it 
belongs  and  who  has  not  renounced  it. 

"  It  is  not  contrary  to  the  incontrovertible  force 
of  those  principles  of  universal  legislation  that, 
until  the  definitive  situation  of  the  provinces  of 
Tacna  and  Arica  shall  be  decided,  they  shall  be 
subject,  in  the  internal  and  civil  sense,  to  the  Chil- 
ean authorities  and  legislation,  which  is  the  true 
and  only  situation  established  by  the  Treaty  of 
Peace  of  1883  in  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica 
during  the  ten  years  of  possession  that  was 
granted  to  Chile :  a  title  that  legally  ceased  after 
the  expiration  of  the  period."  (Appendix,  pp.  365- 
366.) 

At  the  invitation  of  Chile,  Peru  sent  Seiior  Alvarez 
Calderon  in  1906  to  Santiago  to  continue  the  negotia- 
tions, but  as  the  negotiations  were  fruitless,  it  is  un- 
necessary to  discuss  them  here. 


The  First  Question.  49 

1908-1910  Correspondence. 

After  the  failure  of  Alvarez  Calderon's  mission,  his 
successor  Senor  Seoane  was  urged  by  Chile  to  open 
new  negotiations.  They  were  begun  by  a  note  of  the 
Chilean  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  dated  March  25, 
1908,  and  continued  intermittently  to  March,  1910, 
when  Peru  again  broke  off  diplomatic  relations  with 
Chile.  (Appendix,  pp.  370-493.)  In  the  early  part  of  this 
period  no  new  arguments  were  advanced  by  the  respec- 
tive chancelleries.  In  August,  1908,  a  new  Chilean 
Minister  arrived  at  Lima  to  urge  the  Peruvian  Govern- 
ment to  present  its  points  of  view.  But  the  latter  Gov- 
ernment never  carried  out  its  promises  to  do  so. 
In  his  note  of  September  30,  1909,  however,  the  Peru- 
vian Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  made  an  important 
statement  to  which  attention  should  be  directed.  Dis- 
cussing the  alleged  closing  of  certain  churches  by  the 
authorities  of  Tacna  and  Arica  and  the  supposed  colo- 
nization plans  of  Chile  he  said : 

"It  was  agreed  that  those  populations  should  be 
governed  by  Chilean  laws  as  long  as  the  occupa- 
tion should  continue,  and  hence  it  is  impossible  to 
discern  the  ground  on  which  the  local  administra- 
tion can  take  its  stand  to  proceed  in  such  a  manner 
that  the  protection  which  these  laws  are  designed 
to  offer  is,  in  truth,  withheld.  It  is  evident  that  to 
deprive  a  people  of  the  means  of  continuing  its 
religious  practices  by  an  act  of  violence  is  equiva- 
lent to  the  suspension  of  one  of  its  most  ele- 
mentary and  indispensable  rights.  *  *  * 

"The  colonization  law  is  contrary  in  its  spirit 
to  what  that  Treaty  provides  in  setting  on  the 
temporary  occupation,  because,  indeed,  the  mere 
occupant  does  not  possess  the  right  to  dispose  of 
what  does  not  belong  to  him,  and  much  less  under 
circumstances  in  which  the  occupation  may  cease 


50  The  Case  of  Chile. 

at  any  moment  by  reason  of  the  expiration  of  the 
period.  As  the  eventuality  of  the  plebiscite  and 
the  expectations  of  Peru  may  not  be  disregarded, 
it  is  deduced  that  Your  Excellency's  Government 
ought  not  to  execute  a  measure  designed  to  pro- 
duce its  effect  in  a  remote  future,  and  which,  sup- 
posing the  indefinite  continuance  of  the  Chilean 
administration,  might  be  interpreted  as  a  declara- 
tion that  these  eventualities  had  disappeared." 
(Appendix,  pp.  420-421.) 

The  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  these  quoted  para- 
graphs is  that  Peru  had  come  to  the  point  of  condoning 
the  occupation  of  Tacna-Arica  by  Chile  and  of  waiving 
her  previously  asserted  rights  until  the  plebiscite 
should  be  held,  for  no  protest  is  made  in  this  note  as 
to  the  period  of  occupation  and  possession,  but  on  the 
contrary  the  equal  application  of  the  Chilean  laws  re- 
lating to  worship  is  demanded  in  Tacna-Arica.  In  later 
notes,  however,  this  attitude  of  Peru  was  modified  and 
she  revived  her  contention  that  the  period  of  occupa- 
tion should  have  ended  in  1894.     (Appendix,  p.  434.) 

In  the  autumn  of  1909  an  effort  was  made  by  Chile 
to  reach  an  agreement  on  a  plebiscite  plan  modeled 
upon  the  Billinghurst-Latorre  Protocol  in  which  cer- 
tain changes  were  suggested  by  the  parties.  The  at- 
tempt was  futile. 

Both  before  and  after  this  attempt  the  correspon- 
dence had  to  do  with  the  general  subject  of  the  alleged 
efforts  at  Chileanization.  The  arguments  advanced  by 
the  contending  parties  were  repetitions  of  those  made 
before. 

The  attitude  of  Peru  is  shown  in  a  note  of  Decem- 
ber 23,  1909,  in  which  the  Peruvian  Minister  of  For- 
eign Affairs,  Sefior  Porras,  said: 


The  Fibst  Question.  51 

'  *  Since  this  title  does  not  exist,  her  attitude 
ought  to  be  the  same  as  it  would  be  if  she  were  on 
the  eve  of  the  plebiscite.  She  had,  during  the  ten 
years  agreed  on,  the  right  to  bestir  herself  in 
order  to  win  the  sympathy  and  attachment  of  the 
inhabitants  of  Tacna  and  Arica.  It  is  well  known « 
that  the  period  passed  without  her  securing  this 
sympathy,  because  of  which,  it  may  be  said,  the 
definitive  nationality  of  the  territory  was  then 
virtually  decided.  To  believe  therefore  that,  be- 
cause of  the  simple  fact  of  a  postponement  to 
which  Peru  did  not  consent  and  after  sixteen  years 
in  which  the  obligation  to  return  Tacna  and  Arica 
has  been  in  suspense;  to  believe,  I  repeat,  that 
Chile  has  the  right  to  dictate  measures  that  tend 
to  obtain  the  majority  of  votes  in  favor  of 
her  cause  by  bringing  about  a  change  in  the 
population  is  to  discredit  the  thought  of  the  nego- 
tiators, is  to  desire  to  accomplish  by  arbitrary 
acts,  during  a  period  of  more  than  twenty-five 
years,  what  was  not  achieved  by  lawful  acts  in  ten 
years."  (Appendix,  p.  43S.) 

Chile's  position  may  be  summed  up  in  the  following 
succinct  statement  of  her  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs, 
Sehor  Agustin  Edwards  in  his  reply  of  March  3,  1910 : 


' '  according  to  the  law  and  the  spirit  of  the  Treaty 
of  Ancon,  the  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica  were 
ceded  to  Chile  in  full  and  absolute  sovereignty, 
without  any  limitation  as  to  its  exercise,  and 
limited  only  in  regard  to  its  duration  by  the  event 
of  a  plebiscite  called  after  the  passage  of  ten 
years."  (Appendix,  pp.  450-451.) 

For  a  detailed  answer  to  the  charges  of  Peru  in  this 
regard  reference  is  made  to  the  Chilean  circular  ad- 
dressed to  the  Foreign  Legations  in  Santiago  and  dated 
March  15,  1910.  (Appendix,  p.  466.) 


52  The  Case  of  Chile. 

The  reply  to  the  note  of  Senor  Edwards  of  March 
3rd  was  a  notice  dated  March  19, 1910,  by  the  Peruvian 
Minister,  that  the  maintenance  of  diplomatic  relations 
was  useless  and  that  he  had  been  ordered  by  his  Gov- 
ernment to  return  to  Peru,  after  lodging  his  protest 
against  the  acts  of  Chile  in  Tacna  and  Arica  to  which 
he  had  referred  in  the  correspondence. 

Since  that  date  diplomatic  relations  between  the  two 
countries  have  never  been  resumed. 

1912  Negotiations. 

Noth withstanding  the  fact  that  diplomatic  relations 
were  severed,  negotiations  were  introduced  in  1912 
through  unofficial  channels  in  an  effort  to  reach  an 
agreement  as  to  the  basis  of  a  plebiscite  and  to  the  re- 
newal of  friendly  relations.  The  result  was  the  mutual 
exchange  of  telegrams  between  the  Ministers  of  For- 
eign Affairs  of  Chile  and  Peru,  dated  November  10, 
1912,  and  known  as  the  Huneeus-Valera  Protocol  of 
that  year.  {Appendix,  pp.  495-500.)  This  arrangement 
provided  for  holding  the  plebiscite  in  1933  and  con- 
tained no  word  of  protest  or  objection  to  the  continued 
possession  by  Chile  of  the  territories  in  dispute  until 
that  date.  It  was  taken  for  granted  that  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  provinces  would  not  be  disturbed  until 
the  plebiscite  had  been  held.  This  is  clearly  evident 
from  a  reading  of  the  secret  message  of  President  Bil- 
linghurst  to  the  Peruvian  Congress,  November  30, 
1912,  in  which  he  strongly  advocated  approval  of  this 
protocol.    {Appendix,  p.  500.)   He  said: 

1  *  This  agreement  intended  to  obviate  such  a  re- 
grettable situation  [continued  occupation]  by  sup- 
pressing the  cause  and  the  pretext  which  have 
created  and  maintained  it,  because  the  date  having 
been  named  and  the  definite  conditions  for  a  plebi- 


The  First  Question.  53 

scite  having  been  set  forth,  the  repetition  of  the 
uncertainties  of  the  past  and  of  the  difficulties  of 
the  present  are  definitely  avoided.  *  *  * 

"The  hazardous  uncertainties  of  the  future,  as 
a  consequence  of  a  long  and  indefinite  occupation, 
are  replaced  by  a  definite  period  of  time  within 
which,  placing  in  its  proper  category  the  juridical 
situation  of  Chile  with  regard  to  Tacna  and  Arica 
— the  capacity  of  this  nation  to  perform  acts  not  in 
conformity  with  her  constitutional  provisions,  and 
that  might  affect  the  exercise  of  a  permanent  and 
definite  sovereignty,  is  annulled."  (Appendix,  pp. 
510-515.) 

While  this  exchange  of  telegrams  between  the  For- 
eign Ministers  of  Chile  and  Peru  is  not  contended  to 
be  the  special  protocol  provided  for  in  Article  III  of 
the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  it  indicates  a  complete  under- 
standing at  that  time  between  the  countries  as  to  the 
subjects  mentioned  in  the  telegrams.  Such  an  under- 
standing in  the  light  of  the  intention  of  Peru,  as  set 
forth  by  President  Billinghurst  in  his  secret  message 
to  the  Peruvian  Congress,  quoted  above,  shows  that 
then  Peru  acquiesced  in  the  occupation  of  Tacna-Arica 
by  Chile  up  to  that  time  and  shows  further  that  she 
approved  the  continuance  of  that  occupation  for  the 
intervening  period  up  to  1933,  that  is  until  the  plebi- 
scite had  taken  place. 

1921  Negotiations. 

Although  diplomatic  relations  still  remained  severed, 
Chile  again  in  1921  renewed  negotiations  by  a  tele- 
graphic correspondence  carried  on  directly  between 
the  Ministers  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  two  countries, 
Sehor  Ernesto  Barros  and  Senor  Alberto  Salomon 
respectively,  in  an  effort  to  find  a  common  basis  of 
accord  with  reference  to  carrying  out  the  stipulations 


54  The  Case  of  Chile. 

of  Article  III  (Appendix,  pp.  536-584.)  Sefior  Barros 
proposed  on  behalf  of  Chile  that  the  Huneeus-Valera 
Protocol  should  be  the  basis  of  negotiations.  Seiior 
Salomon,  however,  desired  a  '  *  full  arbitration ' '  of  all 
pending  questions  including  all  alleged  infractions  of 
the  Treaty  of  Ancon  on  the  part  of  Chile.  The  discus- 
sion reached  the  point  where  both  parties  expressed  a 
willingness  to  send  representatives  to  Washington  to 
carry  on  the  negotiations,  but  the  Governments  could 
not  come  to  an  agreement  as  to  whether  the  Chilean 
or  the  Peruvian  basis  was  to  be  the  subject  of  nego- 
tiation in  Washington.  In  the  telegraphic  interchanges 
up  to  this  point  neither  Government  expressed  any 
novel  views  as  to  the  meaning  of  Article  III.  Sefior 
Barros,  however,  in  reply  to  the  assertion  of  Sefior 
Salomon  that  Article  III  could  not  be  carried  out  as  to 
the  plebiscite  because  of  the  expulsions  from  Tacna 
and  Arica  by  Chile  said : 

"Your  Excellency,  however,  referred  to  the 
mass  expulsion  of  the  Peruvians  from  Tacna  and 
Arica  and  to  the  impossibility  of  the  carrying  out 
of  the  plebiscite,  due  to  this  fact. 

•  'If  the  expulsions  decreed  by  the  Government 
of  Chile  are  not  those  requested  by  Your  Excel- 
lency, because  of  a  fear  of  revolutionary  agita- 
tors I  do  not  know  which  ones  are  meant  by  the 
references  in  your  communications  but,  in  any 
event,  I  am  pleased,  to  offer  to  the  Government  of 
Your  Excellency  the  guarantee  which  may  be  re- 
quested for  the  return  of  the  Peruvian  citizens 
meeting  the  voting  requirements  and  who  prove 
that  they  have  left  Tacna  and  Arica  because  of 
violence."   (Appendix,  p.  544.) 

At  the  end  of  1921,  these  negotiations  were  at  a  dead- 
lock as  each  Government  was  insistent  on  its  position 
as  to  the  subject  to  be  discussed  in  the  proposed  con- 


The  Fiest  Question.  55 

ference.  At  this  opportune  moment  the  President  of 
the  United  States,  taking  note  of  the  situation,  sent  an 
invitation  to  the  Government  of  Chile  and  the  Govern- 
ment of  Peru  to  send  representatives  to  Washington 
"to  the  end  that  such  representatives  may  settle  *  *  * 
the  existing  difficulties  or  may  arrange  for  the  settle- 
ment of  them  by  arbitration. ■ '  (Appendix,  p.  589.) 

The  Washington  Conference. 

The  representatives  of  Chile  and  Peru  met  in  Wash- 
ington in  May,  1922,  and  began  their  deliberations. 

During  the  Washington  Conference  Peru  complained 
of  the  unjustifiable  occupation  of  the  provinces  by 
Chile,  and  contended  in  the  first  place  for  the  imme- 
diate restoration  of  Tacna  and  Arica  without  a  plebi- 
scite, and  in  the  second  place  for  the  arbitration  of 
the  question  of  a  plebiscite  and  the  final  disposition  of 
the  provinces.  (Appendix,  p.  609.)  On  the  other 
hand,  Chile  contended  that  her  sovereignty  was 
complete  not  for  ten  years  or  forty  years,  but 
until  the  conditions  of  Article  III  were  carried  out. 
(Appendix,  pp.  609,  649.)  Out  of  these  respective  con- 
tentions as  to  the  possession  of  Tacna  and  Arica  and 
through  the  good  offices  of  Secretary  of  State  Hughes, 
there  came  the  agreement  to  submit  to  arbitration  the 
question,  whether  or  not  a  plebiscite  should  be  held  in 
the  present  circumstances.  Arbitration  as  to  the  hold- 
ing of  a  plebiscite  having  been  determined  upon,  there 
arose  the  question  as  to  the  relation  of  Chile  to  the 
territory  should  the  Arbitrator  decide  that  no  plebi- 
scite should  be  held.  Chile  proposed  a  declaration  that 
in  that  event  her  relation  to  those  territories  should 
not  be  changed  in  any  way.    Peru  answered  that — 


56  The  Case  of  Chile. 

a *  *  #  y.  wag  no^.  now  necessary  to  include  such  a 
declaration  because  the  silence  of  the  Protocol  took 
that  as  understood.  We  thought  that  it  was  abso- 
lutely essential  that  in  the  documents  constituting 
the  agreement,  the  express  declaration  of  limiting 
the  powers  of  the  arbitrator,  should  appear  in  case 
the  plebiscite  should  be  declared  to  be  unenforci- 
ble,  instead  of  a  mere  declaration  of  principle  on 
this  point,  so  that  he  would  not  be  empowered  to 
assume  the  authority  to  supplement  the  Treaty, 
and  altering,  in  any  way,  the  conditions  under 
which  we  exercise  dominion  there,  by  virtue  of  the 
terms  of  the  Pact  of  Ancon."  (Appendix,  p.  658.) 

With  this  difference  of  view — not  as  to  Chile's  rela- 
tion to  Tacna  and  Arica  if  the  Arbitrator  decided  that 
no  plebiscite  were  held  but  as  to  the  inclusion  of  a  dec- 
laration on  this  point  in  the  Protocol — both  parties  ap- 
pealed to  Secretary  Hughes  to  express  an  opinion  as 
to  whether  or  not  a  declaration,  that  Chile's  relation 
to  the  territories  should  remain  unchanged  if  the  Arbi- 
trator decided  against  a  plebiscite,  should  be  set  forth 
in  the  Eecord.  Accordingly,  the  Chairman  of  the  Chil- 
ean Delegation,  Senor  Aldunate,  and  the  Chairman  of 
the  Peruvian  Delegation,  Senor  Porras,  had  a  confer- 
ence with  Secretary  Hughes  on  July  7,  1922,  in  which 
this  point  was  discussed.  (Appendix,  p.  639.) 

The  following  extract  from  the  minutes  of  that  con- 
ference shows  the  views  expressed  by  Senor  Aldunate 
and  Senor  Porras  as  to  the  question  of  inserting  the 
declaration  mentioned  in  the  Eecord : 

"Sr.  Aldunate  then  set  forth  the  views  of  the 
Chilean  Delegation  with  reference  to  the  desir- 
ability of  inserting,  either  in  the  Protocol,  or  the 
Supplementary  Act,  or  in  a  definite  way  in  the 
minutes  of  the  Conference,  a  statement  to  the  ef- 
fect that,  if  the  arbitrator  should  decide  against 


The  First  Question.  57 

the  holding  of  a  plebiscite  the  status  of  possession 
of  the  provinces  by  Chile  should  not  be  disturbed, 
and  that  her  right  to  legislate  for  the  provinces 
and  to  appoint  administrative  authorities  should 
not  be  questioned.  Pie  pointed  out  that  this  was 
the  interpretation  which  both  the  Chilean  Delega- 
tion and  the  Chilean  Government  had  placed  upon 
the  formula  proposed  by  Mr.  Hughes  and  which 
they  had  so  gladly  accepted.  Without  some  such 
declaratory  statement  he  felt  that  there  was  real 
danger  that  Peru  might  interpret  Clause  'C  of 
the  Supplementary  Act  to  mean  that,  in  case  the 
arbitrator  decide  against  the  holding  of  a  plebi- 
scite, the  provinces  should  be  turned  over  immedi- 
ately to  Peru.  He  felt  certain  that  neither  Dr. 
Porras  nor  Dr.  Velarde  would  give  such  an  inter- 
pretation, as  they  were  fully  acquainted,  not  only 
with  the  letter  but  also  with  the  spirit  of  the 
Clause,  but  he  stated  that  men  come  and  go  and  it 
was  impossible  to  foresee  who  would  give  inter- 
pretation to  the  Clause  when  the  time  comes  for 
its  application.  He  felt,  furthermore,  that  where 
in  Clause  'C  of  the  Supplementary  Act  the  two 
Governments  agree  to  'enter  into  a  discussion  of 
the  situation  created  by  the  decision  of  the  Arbi- 
trator, '  it  might  be  assumed  that  the  situation  thus 
i  created '  is  an  entirely  new  one  and  that  the  decla- 
ratory words  are  intended  to  overcome  such  a  pre- 
sumption. He  deemed  it  necessary,  therefore,  in 
order  to  avoid  subsequent  controversies  to  include 
a  declaratory  statement  that  would  remove  all 
doubt  from  the  situation  and  that  his  Government 
regarded  such  a  declaratory  statement  as  indis- 
pensable. 

"Dr.  Porras  then  stated  that,  in  his  opinion,  the 
introduction  of  the  declaratory  words  proposed 
by  the  Chilean  Delegation  would  mean  a  trans- 
formation of  the  formula  proposed  by  Secretary 
Huo'hes  into  something  that  was  not  intended  at 
the  time  that  it  was  proposed  and  when  it  was  ac- 
cepted by  the  Peruvian  Government.    Dr.  Porras 


58  The  Case  oe  Chile. 

emphasized  the  fact  that  he  regarded  the  declara- 
tion proposed  by  the  Chilean  Delegation  as  un- 
necessary, because  such  declarations  are  super- 
fluous where  there  is  no  change  in  the  person  or 
entity  in  occupation  or  possession.  Furthermore, 
he  regarded  such  declaration  as  derogatory  to 
Peru  and  likely  to  wound  national  sensibilities. 

' '  To  this  observation  Sr.  Aldunate  made  a  brief 
reply,  stating  that  there  was  no  thought  in  pro- 
posing these  additional  words  to  change  the  for- 
mula proposed  by  Secretary  Hughes,  but  simply 
to  clarify  the  situation  so  as  to  avoid  subsequent 
controversies.' '   (Appendix,  pp.  640-641.) 

After  these  statements  by  the  Delegates  of  Chile  and 
Peru,  Secretary  Hughes  took  up  the  discussion  of  the 
point  in  question.  The  following  extracts  from  his 
statement  are  taken  from  the  minutes  of  the  same 
meeting : 

"*  *  *  He  deemed  it  a  matter  of  very  great 
moment  that  the  final  agreement  when  reached 
should  not  only  express  the  actual  understanding 
of  the  two  Governments,  but,  also,  should  be  so 
worded  as  to  avoid  future  differences  and  contro- 
versies ;  that  he  had  thought  over  the  matter  very 
carefully  and  felt  that  it  should  be  clear  that  in 
case  the  arbitrator  should  decide  against  the  hold- 
ing of  a  plebiscite  that  Chile  thereby  acquired  no 
new  or  additional  rights.  On  the  other  hand,  he 
deemed  it  important  that,  pending  the  settlement 
as  to  the  final  disposition  of  the  territory,  the  ad- 
ministrative organization  of  the  provinces  should 
not  be  disrupted  and  that,  in  the  interest  of  peace 
and  good  order,  it  should  be  made  clear  that  there 
would  be  no  such  disruption.  *  *  * 

"The  Secretary  then  went  on  to  say  that  he  fully 
appreciated  that  both  parties  were  somewhat  ap- 
prehensive as  to  the  future.  He  could  see  that 
Chile  was  somewhat  apprehensive  lest  Peru  might 


The  Fiest  Question.  59 

say  that  Chile  should  relinquish  all  control  of  the 
provinces  prior  to  the  negotiations  stipulated  in 
the  agreement,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  he  could  see 
that  .Peru  was  apprehensive  lest  Chile  should  re- 
main in  possession  for  an  indefinite,  and  possibly 
prolonged,  period.  He  deemed  it  important,  there- 
fore, to  avoid  language  which  might  give  rise  to 
embarrassing  and  irritating  claims  on  either  side, 
and  to  find  a  formula  which  would  avoid  conten- 
tion. He  was  endeavoring  to  look  at  the  question 
from  the  standpoint  of  both  countries,  with  a  view 
to  suggesting  something  that  might  allay  the  ap- 
prehensions of  both.  *  *  * 

' '  In  explaining  the  suggestion  that  he  was  about 
to  make,  the  Secretary  stated  that  he  had  placed 
at  the  beginning  of  the  statement  the  reason  for 
the  suggestion  in  the  form  as  submitted,  namely, 
the  introductory  words : 

'In  the  interest  of  peace  and  good  order.' 

"Having  done  this,  it  is  made  clear  that  the  ad- 
ministrative organization  of  the  provinces  should 
not  be  disturbed  pending  an  agreement  as  to  the 
disposition  of  the  territory. 

"The  complete  suggestion,  therefore,  which  he 
desired  to  submit  for  the  consideration  of  the  dele- 
gates is  as  follows: 

'It  is  understood,  in  the  interest  of  peace  and 
good  order,  that  in  this  event  and  pending  an 
agreement  as  to  the  disposition  of  the  territory, 
the  administrative  organization  of  the  provinces 
shall  not  be  disturbed.'  "  (Appendix,  pp.  642- 
643.) 

The  above  quoted  statement  of  Secretary  Hughes 
was  summarized  in  a  telegram  to  Santiago  by  the 
Chilean  Ambassador  at  Washington  as  follows : 


60  The  Case  of  Chile. 

"In  a  meeting  today  in  the  office  of  the  Secre- 
tary of  State,  at  which  Aldunate,  Porras  and  Rowe 
were  present,  Hughes  made  a  verbal  explanation 
in  which  he  indicated  that  his  purpose  was  to  pro- 
pose a  drawing  up  of  terms  which  would  avoid 
the  two  difficulties  :  (a)  That  the  declaration  of  the 
unenforcibleness  of  the  plebiscite  might  change 
the  status  of  the  territory,  thereby  damaging  the 
interests  of  Chile;  and  (b)  That  this  declaration 
might  be  interpreted  as  a  new  title  vested  in  Chile, 
damaging  the  interests  of  Peru."  (Appendix,  p. 
659.) 

The  formula  of  Mr.  Hughes  was  carefully  considered 
by  the  Government  of  Chile  and  the  Government  of 
Peru.  It  was  freely  criticized  in  Santiago  as  limiting 
Chile's  sovereign  rights  in  Tacna  and  Arica,  and  in 
order  to  satisfy  the  anxiety  in  Congressional  circles  as 
to  the  exact  scope  of  the  formula  of  Mr.  Hughes,  the 
Chilean  Delegation  was  instructed: 

1  i  to  refrain  from  signing  if  the  point  as  to  the  un- 
changeability  of  our  rights  in  Tacna  and  Arica,  in 
the  event  that  the  plebiscite  should  be  declared  un- 
founded by  law,  was  not  perfectly  clear.' '  (Appen- 
dix, p.  661.) 

At  the  same  time  the  Chilean  Ambassador  in  Washing- 
ton was  instructed  to  ask  Mr.  Hughes  to  make  clear  his 
interpretation  of  the  formula.  Accordingly,  Ambas- 
sador Mathieu  in  a  note  to  Secretary  Hughes,  dated 
July  19,  1922,  said: 

"My  Government  has  accepted  this  clause  with 
the  understanding  that  when  it  is  stated  that  'the 
administrative  organization  of  the  provinces  shall 
not  be  distrubed '  such  statement  confirms  the  pro- 
vision of  Article  III  of  the  Treaty,  which  subjects 
the  territory  to  the  'Chilean  laws  and  authori- 
ties." (Appendix,  p.  637.) 


The  Fibst  Question.  61 

At  the  close  of  his  note  the  Ambassador  asked  Mr. 
•Hughes  the  question  whether  it  was  correct  that  in 
suggesting  his  formula : 

"Your  Excellency  [Mr.  Hughes]  did  not  have  in 
view  changing  the  actual  status  of  territory  as  de- 
termined by  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  nor  did  you 
thereby  have  in  view  conferring  either  upon  Chile 
or  Peru  new  title  or  new  rights."  (Appendix,  p. 
638.) 

Secretary  Hughes  replied  on  July  19,  1923,  that  he 
hestitated  to  make  any  further  suggestion  save  in  a 
further  conference  with  the  delegates,  and  added : 

"It  seems  to  me,  however,  that  it  may  serve  the 
purpose  you  have  in  view  if  I  send  to  you  a  sum- 
mary prepared  by  Dr.  Rowe  of  the  interview  held 
with  Senor  Aldunate  and  Dr.  Porras,  in  the 
course  of  which  the  clause  in  question  was  sug- 
gested. It  seems  to  me  that  what  was  then  said  is 
entirely  sufficient  by  way  of  commentary  upon  the 
purpose  and  intent  of  the  clause.' '  (Appendix, 
p.  639.) 

Upon  this  understanding  of  the  meaning  of  the 
formula,  the  Chilean  Delegation  was  instructed  on  the 
same  day  to  sign  both  the  Protocol  and  the  Supple- 
mentary Agreement,  the  latter  containing  Mr.  Hughes ' 
formula  word  for  word  and  without  change  as  a  part 
of  Clause  2nd.  In  order  to  avoid  future  misunderstand- 
ing and  to  preserve  the  full  meaning  of  the  clause  as 
interpreted  by  Mr.  Hughes  it  was  set  forth  in  the 
Agreement  in  English,  as  well  as  in  Spanish.  The  for- 
mula and  the  interpretation  given  to  it  as  above  indi- 
cated was  accepted  by  Peru  when  she  signed  and  rati- 
fied the  Protocol  and  Supplementary  Agreement. 


62  The  Case  of  Chile. 

The  foregoing  is  the  history  of  the  origin  and  the 
explanation  of  the  meaning  of  the  formula  proposed  by 
Mr.  Hughes  and  accepted  by  the  parties  to  this  Arbi- 
tration. One  thing  is  clear,  that  Peru,  by  accepting 
this  formula,  has  waived  all  objections  which  she  has 
heretofore  made  to  the  possession  by  Chile  of  Tacna 
and  Arica  since  the  expiration  of  the  ten-year  period 
mentioned  in  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon.  More 
than  that,  she  has  agreed  to  Chilean  occupation  and 
the  application  of  Chilean  law  and  authority  until  the 
disposition  of  the  territories  shall  be  finally  deter- 
mined. Manifestly,  Peru  cannot  in  the  face  of  this 
formal  waiver  of  her  previous  contentions  raise  any 
question  as  to  the  past,  present  or  future  exercise  of 
sovereignty  by  Chile  in  Tacna  and  Arica  until  the  fate 
of  these  territories  shall  have  been  determined  by 
plebiscite  under  the  Arbitrator's  award  or  by  a  nego- 
tiated agreement  if  the  Arbirtator  should  decide 
against  a  plebiscite.  In  the  award  or  the  agreement, 
it  will  be  necessary  to  take  care  of  the  "  terms  and 
times' '  (terminos  i  plazos)  for  the  payment  of  the  ten 
millions  of  Chilean  silver  dollars  or  .Peruvian  soles — 
which  is  the  other  condition  precedent  to  the  recession 
of  the  territories  to  Peru. 

It  would  appear  to  be  demonstrated,  therefore,  be- 
yond the  peradventure  of  a  doubt,  from  the  language  of 
Article  III,  from  the  negotiations  up  to  the  Washington 
Conference  and  from  the  proceedings  of  the  Confer- 
ence and  the  resulting  Protocol  and  Supplementary 
Agreement,  that  Chile  has  been  and  is  rightfully  in 
sovereign  possession  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  and  that 
Peru  is  estopped  from  objecting  to  such  possession 
until  the  two  conditions  of  plebiscite  and  payment 
have  been  complied  with  or  the  final  disposition  of  the 
territory  has  been  determined  by  a  new  agreement 
between  the  two  countries. 


The  Fiest  Question.  63 

(b)  The  Plebiscite. 

As  we  have  seen,  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon 
provides  in  respect  of  the  plebiscite  as  follows : 

1  *  After  the  expiration  of  that  term  ["ten  years, 
to  be  reckoned  from  the  date  of  the  ratification  of 
the  present  Treaty  of  Peace"]  a  plebiscitum  will 
decide  by  popular  vote  whether  the  territories  of 
the  above  mentioned  provinces  will  remain  defi- 
nitely under  the  dominion  and  sovereignty  of-  Chile 
or  continue  to  form  part  of  Peru.  *  *  * 

"A  special  protocol,  which  will  be  considered  as 
an  integral  part  of  the  present  treaty,  will  pre- 
scribe the  manner  in  which  the  plebiscitum  is  to 
be  carried  out  *  *  *."  (Appendix,  p.  678.) 

The  holding  of  the  proposed  plebiscite  is,  as  pointed 
out  elsewhere,  dependent  upon  two  conditions  prece- 
dent :  First,  the  expiration  of  the  ten-year  period,  and 
second,  the  negotiation  and  ratification  of  the  special 
protocol  provided  for  in  Article  III. 

The  first  of  these  conditions  has  been  fulfilled,  but 
the  second  has  never  been  met,  owing  to  the  fact  that 
Chile ,and  Peru  were  unable  to  agree  upon  the  "manner 
in  which  the  plebiscitum  ["by  popular  vote"]  is  to  be 
carried  out." 

It  will  be  observed  that  no  provision  is  made  in 
Article  III  as  to  the  date  of  the  plebiscite,  the  con- 
trol of  the  plebiscitary  proceeding,  the  qualifica- 
tions of  the  voters,  the  method  of  registering  the 
voters  or  holding  the  election,  or  any  other  details 
of  the  plebiscitary  proceeding.  These  subjects  were 
all  to  be  matters  for  discussion  and  agreement  in  the 
negotiation  of  the  special  protocol.  The  efforts  of  the 
Governments  concerned  to  come  to  such  an  agreement 
will  be  briefly  reviewed.    It  will  be  realized  that  only 


64  The  Case  op  Chile. 

a  gloss  of  the  extended  negotiations  and  correspon- 
dence can  be  given  here  and  that  a  fnll  understanding 
of  the  obstacles  in  the  way  of  reaching  a  mutually 
satisfactory  arrangement  can  best  be  obtained  by  read- 
ing the  documents  referred  to  and  quoted  from,  which 
are  printed  in  the  Appendix. 

The  discussion  of  the  special  protocol  began  before 
the  expiration  of  the  ten-year  period,  that  is  in  1890, 
in  conversations  initiated  by  the  President  and  Min- 
ister'of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Chile  with  the  Peruvian 
Minister  in  Santiago.  In  a  report  of  June  10,  1890,  re- 
garding these  conversations,  the  Peruvian  Minister  at 
Santiago  said : 

"  *  *  *  T  have  hastened  to  make  it  known,  in  con- 
formity with  your  instructions,  that  Peru  desired 
to  fulfill  strictly  the  Treaty  of  Peace,  without  ad- 
vancing the  period  designated  in  it  for  the  plebi- 
scite that  is  to  settle  the  fate  of  those  territories. 

"No  occasion  is  lost,  however,  to  show  how  great 
is  the  interest  of  the  present  Government  in  antici- 
pating the  solution  of  this  delicate  subject  in  a 
manner  favorable  to  Chile;  although  it  may  not 
be  doubted  that  it  wounds  the  legitimate  patriotic 
sentiment  of  Peru."  {Appendix,  p.  2.1.) 

1892-1894  Negotiations. 

Conversations  were  also  conducted  at  Lima  between 
the  Minister  of  Chile  and  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs  which  resulted  in  the  submission  by  the  latter 
on  September  5,  1892,  of  a  memorandum  of  bases 
of  negotiation,  in  which  Peru,  in  connection  with  cer- 
tain commercial  arrangements,  made  a  proposal  which 
in  effect  did  away  with  the  holding  of  the  plebiscite. 
This  proposal  was : 


The  First  Question.  65 

"The  Government  of  Chile  dis occupies  the  ter- 
ritory of  Tacna  and  Arica,  which  will  continue 
under  the  sovereignty  *and  dominion  of  Peru." 
(Appendix,  p.  27.) 

Chile,  in  her  reply  of  April  8,  1893,  declined  to  re- 
nounce her  legitimate  expectations  under  the  Treaty 
of  Ancon  as  to  the  permanent  acquisition  of  Tacna 
and  Arica.  (Appendix,  p.  32.) 

These  exchanges  led  to  a  series  of  conferences  at 
Lima  between  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  and  the 
Chilean  Minister  extending  from  April  to  December, 
1893. 

One  of  the  first  topics  taken  up  for  discussion  was 
the  control  of  the  plebiscite,  Peru  suggesting  that 
Tacna  and  Arica  be  returned  to  her  at  the  expiration 
of  the  ten-year  period,  in  order  that  the  plebiscite 
might  be  held  under  her  auspices.  Chile,  however,  took 
the  opposite  view  indicating  that  the  plebiscite  should 
be  held  under  her  supervision  as  cessionaire  of  the  ter- 
ritory. The  Chilean  Minister's  reply  is  given  in  the 
minutes  of  the  conference  of  June  19,  1893,  as  follows: 

"The  Minister  of  Chile  replied  that  he  could 
not  accept  this  interpretation,  since  the  date  speci- 
fied in  connection  with  the  ten  years  referred 
only  to  the  time  of  the  plebiscite  and  no  more ;  that 
the  occupation  of  Chile  until  this  act  should  be 
accomplished  definitively  and  the  obligations  of 
the  treaty  fulfilled,  was  taken  for  granted  in  the 
article  referred  to  by  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Rela- 
tions; and  that,  finally,  the  very  nature  of  this 
treaty  is  tantamount  to  a  territorial  cession  sub- 
ject to  the  condition  of  the  vote  of  the  inhabi- 
tants." (Appendix,  p.  38.) 

Peru,  then  proposed  as  a  compromise  that : 

"the  said  territories  should  be  delivered,  on  the 
date  mentioned  to  a  third  power,  designated  by 


66  The  Case  of  Chile. 

common  consent,  under  whose  auspices  the  plebi- 
scite would  be  effected,  which  would  immediately 
return  them  to  Chile  or  to  Peru,  according  to  what 
the  result  of  the  vote  might  be."  (Appendix,  p.  39.) 

Chile  replied  that  this  proposal  was  also  unaccept- 
able, in  view  of  her  right  under  Article  III  to  occupy 
the  disputed  territory.  (Appendix,  p.  39.) 

Agreement  on  the  control  of  the  plebiscite  not  being 
reached,  the  negotiators  turned  to  the  question  of 
qualification  of  voters.  The  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs 
of  Peru  took  the  view  that  "the  right  of  suffrage  be- 
longed to  none  except  Peruvians  born  and  residing  in 
the  territories  *  *  *  those  of  over  twenty-one  years." 
(Appendix,  p.  43.)  The  Minister  of  Chile,  on  the 
other  hand,  held  that  ' '  all  inhabitants  of  the  territory 
possessed  by  Chile  had  the  right  to  declare  their  will  to 
belong  either  to  Peru  or  to  Chile."  (Appendix,  p.  44.) 
But  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  replied  that  "this 
popular  vote  could  not  refer  to  any  save  Peruvian  citi- 
zens, a  character  not  possessed  by  the  other  inhabi- 
tants." (Appendix,  p.  45.) 

On  August  19,  1893,  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs 
submitted  a  memorandum  in  which  he  suggested  the 
division  of  Tacna-Arica  into  two  zones  along  the  line 
of  the  Vitor  ravine  and  the  occupation  of  the  northern 
zone  by  Peru  and  the  southern  zone  by  Chile,  each 
country  to  control  and  determine  in  her  respective 
zone,  all  of  the  details  of  the  plebiscitary  proceeding. 
(Appendix,  p.  42.) 

Chile  declined  to  accept  the  Peruvian  memorandum 
above  mentioned  as  a  basis  of  discussion  "since  it 
would  be  impossible  for  the  negotiation  to  progress  on 
the  basis  of  a  prior  dis occupation"  of  a  part  of  the 
territory  subject  to  the  plebiscite.  (Appendix,  p.  49.) 

Peru  then  made  a  proposal  for  arbitration  of  certain 
questions  as  follows : 


The  First  Question.  67 

a*  *  *  j-ne  f0iiowing  question  be  submitted  to  a 
friendly  Government  for  immediate  solution :  first, 
to  which  of  the  two  countries  ought  to  belong  the 
territories  after  March  28,  1894 ;  and,  second,  does 
the  right  to  vote  include  only  persons  whose  na- 
tionality would  be  affected  by  definitive  incorpora- 
tion with  Chile1,  or  also  other  inhabitants?  The 
Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  added  that 
they  would  proceed  according  to  the  result  of  the 
arbitral  decision  to  discuss  the  regulations  for  the 
registration  of  voters  and  other  procedures  of  the 
plebiscite,  as  well  as  the  terms  and  periods  in 
which  the  indemnity  would  have  to  be  paid  by  the 
country  that  might  be  favored. ' '  (Appendix,  p.  50.) 

The  Minister  of  Chile  declared  that : 

<<#  *  #  f-nis  means  0f  understanding  and  settle- 
ment was  unacceptable;  for,  in  order  to  be  so,  it 
would  be  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  possession 
of  the  territory  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  which  Chile 
enjoys  by  virtue  of  the  prescription  of  the  Treaty 
of  Ancon,  was  a  disputable  subject  or  one  of  doubt- 
ful rights,  which  could  not  be  admitted,  even  for 
a  moment,  *  *  V  (Appendix,  p.  51.) 

The  conference  outlined  above  finally  led  to  an  agree- 
ment known  as  the  Jimenez-Vial  Solar  Protocol  or 
exchange  of  notes  of  January  26,  1894,  which  left  un- 
settled all  questions  relating  to  the  "manner  in  which 
the  plebiscitum  is  to  be  carried  out, ' '  although  it  made 
definite  arrangement  as  to  the  payment  of  the  ten  mil- 
lions and  the  rectification  of  boundaries  in  the  case 
of  success  in  the  plebiscite  by  one  or  the  other  coun- 
try. (Appendix,  p.  52.) 

The  conclusion  of  the  Jimenez-Vial  Solar  Protocol 
was  followed  by  an  effort  to  agree  upon  the  details  of 
the  manner  of  holding  the  plebiscite.  To  that  end  the 
Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  presented  to  the  Minister  of 


68  The  Case  of  Chile. 

• 

Foreign  Affairs  of  Chile  a  memorandum  dated  Febru- 
ary 23,  1894,  providing  for  the  machinery  for  register- 
ing the  voters  and  casting  the' votes,  the  qualifications 
of  the  voters,  the  payment  of  the  ten  millions,  the  trans- 
fer of  the  territory,  the  citizenship  of  nationals  of  the 
unsuccessful  country  residing  in  Tacna  and  Arica,  and 
other  matters  relationg  to  the  plebiscite.  (Appendix,  p. 
55.) 

On  account  of  the  ministerial  crisis  in  Chile  and 
death  of  the  President  of  Peru  (Appendix,  p.  71)  no 
agreement  was  reached  along  the  lines  of  the  Peruvian 
memorandum  in  respect  of  the  details  of  the  manner  of 
holding  the  plebiscite,  and  the  ten-year  period  expired 
on  March  28,  1894,  with  Chile  still  in  possession  of 
Tacna  and  Arica  in  spite  of  the  protest  of  Peru.  (Ap- 
pendix, p.  62.) 

In  the  summer  and  autumn  of  1894,  informal  conver- 
sations were  had  in  Santiago  between  the  Minister  of 
Foreign  Affairs  and  the  Peruvian  Minister  with  refer- 
ence to  carrying  out  the  Jimenez-Vial  Solar  Protocol, 
but  no  arrangement  wTas  arrived  at  or  committed  to 
written  form.  (Appendix,  p.  68.) 

It  is  proper  to  point  out  that  no  suggestion  was  made 
on  either  side  in  the  negotiations  outlined  above,  that 
the  date  of  the  holding  of  the  plebiscite,  the  qualifica- 
tions of  the  voters,  the  method  of  registration  or 
voting,  or  other  details  were  to  be  determined  in  any 
other  manner  than  by  agreement  between  the  parties 
in  the  special  protocol  mentioned  in  Article  III  or  by 
arbitration  if  both  parties  agreed  to  that  procedure. 
There  was  no  provision  in  Article  III  regarding  arbi- 
tration and,  therefore,  neither  party  was  under  any 
obligation  to  resort  to  that  method  of  settlement  un- 
less it  desired  to  do  so.  It  is  possible  to  realize,  from 
what  has  already  been  stated,  something  of  the  difficul- 


The  Fiest  Question.  69 

ties  in  the  way  of  an  agreement  which  were  inherent  in 
the  sensibilities  of  the  two  countries  with  reference  to 
the  possible  acquisition  of  the  territory  of  Tacna  and 
Arica,  and  also  in  the  nature  and  number  of  questions 
necessary  to  be  decided  prior  to  carrying  out  the  plebi- 
scite. 

1895-1896  Negotiations. 

The  negotiations  were  not  renewed  until  the  autumn 
of  1895  when  they  were  taken  up  in  Lima  between  the 
Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  and  the  Minister  of  Chile. 
In  these  conferences  the  discussion  related  almost  ex- 
clusively to  the  terms  and  guaranty  of  payment  of  the 
ten  millions,  the  manner  of  carrying  out  the  plebiscite 
being  scarcely  touched  upon.  However,  in  the  course 
of  the  discussion  Peru  committed  herself  in  several 
statements  to  the  view  that  the  disposition  of  Tacna 
and  Arica  depended  solely  upon  the  outcome  of  a  plebi- 
scitary vote.  For  example,  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs  of  Peru  said  in  his  note  of  February  3,  1896 : 

"*  *  *  As  may  be  seen,  this  clear  and  definitive 
clause  [Article  III]  subordinated  only  and  exclu- 
sively the  future  nationality  of  those  provinces  to 
a  vote  expressed  in  a  free  plebiscite. ' '  {Appendix, 
p.  IDS.) 

u*  *  *  It  is  demonstrated  that,  according  to  the 
treaty,  the  nationality  of  Tacna  and  Arica  is  sub- 
ject only  and  exclusively  to  the  result  of  the  plebi- 
scite and  that  it  is  in  no  wise  subordinate  to  the 
payment  of  the  ransom  *  *  *."  (Appendix,  p.  104.) 

In  his  reply  of  February  10,  1896,  the  Minister  of 
Chile  said : 

<<*  *  *  This  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  Chile, 
in  order  to  acquire  those  provinces,  or  Peru,  in 


70  The  Case  of  Chile. 

order  to  recover  them,  must  submit  to  a  double 
condition :  that  of  a  popular  vote,  which  shall  give 
them  to  her,  and  that  of  paying  ten  million  pesos/' 
(Appendix,  p.  120.) 

In  passing,  attention  may  here  be  called  to  the  agree- 
ment between  the  countries  shown  in  this  correspon- 
dence that  a  plebiscite  is  an  absolute  condition  prece- 
dent under  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  to  the  recovery  of 
Tacna  and  Arica  by  Peru.  It  is  well  to  keep  this  point 
of  agreement  as  to  the  meaning  of  Article  III  in  mind 
during  this  review  of  the  negotiations  and  correspon- 
dence between  the  two  Governments.  It  is  well  to  re- 
call also  that  Article  III  is  a  mutual  obligation  of  the 
parties  to  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  and  that  they  can  be 
released  from  that  obligation  only  by  a  mutual  agree- 
ment to  that  end.  The  parties,  of  course,  are  free  to 
make  proposals  for  such  an  agreement  and  to  press  for 
their  acceptance  on  political,  economic  or  other  grounds 
but  until  a  mutual  understanding  has  been  reached  and 
an  agreement  concluded  the  old  obligations  subsist  in 
full  force  and  vigor. 

1898  Negotiations. 

Although  negotiations  were  started  in  Lima  in  the 
month  of  August,  1897,  only  one  conference  was  held 
between  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Peru  and 
the  Minister  of  Chile  and  that  resulted  in  no  agreement 
with  reference  to  the  plebiscite.  The  Minister  of  For- 
eign Affairs,  however,  volunteered  a  declaration  to 
the  effect  that,  while  Peru  would  with  pleasure  discuss 
a  proposition  for  a  direct  settlement  of  the  pending 
controversy,  it  must  "always  be  based  on  the  complete 
restitution  of  the  said  provinces  to  Peru. ' '  The  Min- 
ister of  Chile  replied  that  he  had  no  instructions  to 


The  First  Question.  71 

make  any  proposal  for  a  direct  settlement.  (Appendix, 
p.  130.)  In  the  following  winter  after  personal  and  un- 
official conversations  in  Santiago  with  the  Minister  of 
Foreign  Affairs  of  Chile,  Don  Guillermo  E.  Billing- 
hurst,  then  Vice-Preisdent  and  later  President  of  Peru, 
was  appointed  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Peru  on 
Special  Mission  to  undertake  negotiations  with  refer- 
ence to  the  plebiscitary  procedure.  After  several  pro- 
posals had  been  made  by  Chile  and  rejected  by  Peru 
looking  to  a  direct  settlement,  the  negotiators  took  up 
for  consideration  the  bases  of  the  plebiscite.  As  to  the 
qualifications  of  voters,  Chile  maintained  that  "all  the 
inhabitants  of  the  territory  that  should  meet  certain 
requirements  of  age,  residence,  etc.,''  should  be  quali- 
fied to  vote,  whereas  Peru  contended  that ' '  only  Peru- 
vians born  in  the  territory  or  that  reside  in  it  ought  to 
be  permitted  to  vote  provided  they  possess  certain 
personal  qualifications. "  The  deliberations  of  the  con- 
ferees resulted  in  the  so-called  Billinghurst-Latorre 
Protocol  of  April  9,  1898. 

The  Protocol  embodied  for  the  first  time  an 
agreement  as  to  the  details  relative  to  the  plebi- 
scitary proceeding  except  that  two  questions,  viz., 
the  qualifications  of  the  voters  and  the  open  or  se- 
cret character  of  ballot,  were  to  be  submitted  to  the 
arbitration  of  the  Government  of  Her  Majesty  the 
Queen  Eegent  of  Spain.  The  other  details  covered 
by  the  Protocol  included  the  composition,  powers 
and  duties  of  a  Directive  Board  and  of  Registration 
and  Election  Boards,  the  method  of  registering  the 
voters  and  publishing  the  lists,  the  manner  of  receiving 
and  counting  the  ballots  and  announcing  the  result  of 
the  voting,  the  determination  of  the  dates  of  registra- 
tion, publication,  voting,  etc.,  the  method  of  defraying 
the  expenses  of  the  plebiscite  and  the  terms  of  the  pay- 


72  The  Case  of  Chile. 

ment  of  the  ten  million  dollars.  (Appendix,  p.  131.) 
These  details  are  enumerated  merely  to  show  the  large 
number  and  varied  character  of  the  subjects  which 
must  be  agreed  upon  in  the  special  protocol  under  Arti- 
cle III  before  a  plebiscite  can  be  held.  The  chance  for 
disagreement  between  the  representatives  of  two  coun- 
tries desirous  for  patriotic  motives  of  obtaining  by 
means  of  the  plebiscite  definitive  sovereignty  over 
Tacna  and  Arica  is  very  great,  and  the  possibility  of 
complete  accord  is  very  slight,  especially  when  the  pro- 
tocol has  also  to  receive  the  approval  of  the  legislative 
bodies  of  the  two  countries.  It  ought  not  to  be  cause 
for  wonder  that,  in  the  circumstances,  Chile  and  Peru 
have  never  been  able  to  conclude  a  protocol  satisfac- 
tory to  the  legislatures  of  both  countries. 

In  this  connection  it  is  to  be  noted  also  that  neither 
party  to  the  Billinghurst-Latorre  Protocol  intimated 
at  any  time  during  the  negotiations  of  that  instrument 
that  the  plebiscite  should  have  been  held  at  an  earlier 
date  or  that  it  should  not  then  be  held  on  account  of  the 
lapse  of  several  years  since  the  end  of  the  ten-year  pe- 
riod. The  fact  that  the  parties  entered  into  the  proto- 
col shows  conclusively  that  they  regarded  the  date  of 
holding  the  plebiscite  to  be  purely  a  matter  of  agree- 
ment between  the  countries. 

1900-1901  Negotiations  and  Correspondence. 

The  Billinghurst-Latorre  Protocol  was  laid  be- 
fore the  legislatures  of  Peru  and  Chile  in  1898  but  final 
action  by  the  Congress  of  Chile  was  delayed  on  account 
of  questions  raised  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies. 

Although  the  Government  of  Chile  repeatedly  urged 
the  approval  of  the  Protocol  upon  the  Congress  {Ap- 
pendix, p.  148),  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  never  gave 
its  consent  to  the  same.    Meanwhile,  Peru  was  urging 


The  Fiest  Question.  73 

upon  Chile  the  desirability  of  its  prompt  approval. 
(Appendix,  pp.  148,  155,  156.)  In  a  statement  pre- 
sented on  May  10,  1900,  the  Peruvian  Minister  said : 

1 '  He  recalled  minutely  the  history  of  the  negotia- 
tions carried  on  from  1892,  opened  by  the  Senores 
Larrabure  y  Unanue  and  Vial  Solar,  until  the  con- 
clusion of  the  aforementioned  one  of  the  protocol, 
in  the  course  of  which  not  less  than  eight  efforts  at 
an  arrangement  on  different  bases  had  failed  and 
in  which  an  equal  number  of  years  had  been  em- 
ployed. The  Billinghurst  protocol,  he  said,  is  the 
result  of  a  series  of  efforts,  the  result  of  a  long  and 
laborious  diplomatic  process,  at  the  end  of  which 
the  two  Governments  came  to  an  agreement,  after 
eliminating  what  each  of  them  deemed  incompati- 
ble with  the  fundamental  interests  of  its  country. 
If  the  protocol  were  put  aside  to-day,  it  would  be 
necessary  to  go  back  to  the  beginning  of  an  in- 
terminable and  but  little  short  of  impossible  labor. 

"He  explained  also  that  if  the  protocol  were 
abandoned,  in  concerting  new  bases  of  arrange- 
ment, the  Government  of  Peru  would  seek  to  ob- 
tain for  its  country  more  advantageous  conditions 
than  those  that  were  assured  in  that  compact,  and 
that  of  Chile  would  attempt  the  same  thing  for  its 
country.  At  all  events,  neither  of  the  two  Govern- 
ments would  resign  itself  to  accepting  for  its  na- 
tion conditions  more  unfavorable  than  those  in 
which  the  protocol  placed  it.  The  two  Kepublics, 
in  such  a  case,  instead  of  drawing  closer  together, 
would  become  more  widely  separated  from  each 
other,  and  thus  the  impossibility  of  a  new  arrange- 
ment on  different  bases  would  become  accentuated. 

"He  said,  further,  that,  although  the  protocol  in 
question  did  not  meet  the  extreme  demands  of 
either  of  the  countries,  it  kept  alive  the  expecta- 
tions of  both,  of  the  definitive  acquisition  of  the 
territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  and  that  it  con- 
stituted, in  conformity  with  the  laws  of  modern 


74  The  Case  of  Chile. 

civilization,  an  impartial  and  just  arbiter  to  settle 
the  differences  that  had  arisen  as  to  the  manner 
and  conditions  of  the  plebiscite.  If  by  a  stipulated 
arbitration  Chile  exposed  herself  to  seeing  disre- 
garded the  rights  and  principles  that  she  holds  to 
be  incontrovertible,  the  same  would  happen  to 
Peru.  What  would  be  neither  just  nor  acceptable 
in  any  case  was  that  either  of  the  two  interested 
Governments  should  attempt  to  constitute  itself 
an  arbiter  to  determine  by  itself  alone  the  manner 
and  conditions  of  the  plebiscite."  (Appendix,  pp. 
150-152.) 

It  is  submitted  that  this  statement  on  the  part  of 
Peru  is  in  substance  as  applicable  today  to  the  present 
attempt  to  settle  this  irritating  dispute  as  it  was  to 
the  attempt  of  the  negotiators  of  the  Billinghurst- 
Latorre  Protocol. 

In  his  note  of  June  12,  1900,  giving  a  review  of  the 
preceding  conferences,  the  Peruvian  Minister  indi- 
cates clearly  the  indentical  views  entertained  by  his 
Government  and  that  of  Chile  as  to  the  binding  char- 
acter of  the  provisions  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  in  re- 
spect of  the  plebiscite.    The  Minister  stated: 

"In  it  (the  conference  of  May  3rd),  I  began  by 
saying  that  the  natural  and  necessary  basis  of 
any  convention  relative  to  the  plebiscitary  pro- 
cedure that  ought  to  be  observed  for  the  definitive 
settlement  of  the  dominion  and  sovereignty  of 
the  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica  was  to  be  found 
in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  and,  especially,  in  the 
rules  prescribed  in  its  Article  III,  the  terms  of 
which  I  recalled.  Although  Peru,  I  added,  set  her 
signature  to  this  treaty  under  quite  exceptional 
circumstances,  she  ought  not  to  disregard  its  pro- 
visions, in  the  opinion  of  my  Government,  in  estab- 
lishing the  principles  according  to  which  the 
plebiscite  should  be  carried  into  effect.     I  con- 


The  Fikst  Question.  75 

eluded  by  saying  that  I  should  have  omitted  this 
declaration,  if  opinions  had  not  recently  been  ad- 
vanced that  tended  to  cause  the  application  of 
that  treaty,  in  the  portion  recalled,  to  be  ignored. 
"In  view  of  these  declarations,  Your  Excellency 
(the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Chile)  took 
occasion  to  explain  that  the  opinions  of  his  Gov- 
ernment were  the  same;  and  that,  in  his  view, 
as  was  to  be  supposed,  the  treaty  of  Ancon  ought 
to  be  carried  out  in  all  its  parts  in  determining 
the  bases  of  the  plebiscite ;  and  you  added  that,  on 
this  point,  there  existed  no  difference  of  opinion 
between  the  chancelleries  of  Chile  and  Peru.  (Ap- 
pendix, p.  159.) 

These  views  were  substantially  reiterated  by  the 
Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Chile  in  his  reply  of 
July  12,  1900.  (Appendix,  pp.  173-174.) 

On  January  14,  1901,  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  failed 
to  approve  the  Billinghurst-Latorre  Protocol  and  rec- 
ommended that  the  Governments  of  Chile  and  of  Peru 
might  settle  directly  the  two  questions  proposed  for 
arbitration  by  the  Protocol. 

The  reasons  for  this  action  are  stated  in  the  re- 
port of  the  Committee  of  the  Chamber  on  the  Pro- 
tocol which  report  was  submitted  to  that  body  on 
January  14,  1901.     The  report  states: 

"Many  and  lengthy  sessions  were  devoted  to 
the  discussion  of  the  said  agreement,  and  it  was 
only  at  the  session  of  September  24th  that  the 
general  idea  of  negotiating  with  Peru  in  order 
to  resolve  as  to  the  conditions  under  which  the 
plebiscite  that  is  to  decide  as  to  the  final  nation- 
ality of  Tacna  and  Arica  is  to  be  held,  was  ap- 
proved. But  the  intense  opposition  that  some  of 
the  stipulations  of  the  agreement  merited,  made 
impossible  its  ratification  solicited  by  the 
Executive,  without  introducing  modifications  in  it 


76  The  Case  of  Chile. 

that  would  have  to  be  the  subject  of  new  nego- 
tiations. 

"  Since  that  date,  not  any  progress  has  been 
made  in  the  discussion,  which  has  remained  sus- 
pended until  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations 
again  has  asked  for  a  decision  upon  the  part  of  the 
Honorable  Chamber.  *  *  * 

"Besides,  as  the  idea  of  negotiating  with  Peru 
regarding  plebiscite  conditions,  already  is  ap- 
proved in  general,  the  Committee  believes  that 
not  any  useful  purpose  would  be  accomplished  in 
continuing  the  discussion  of  the  Protocol,  as  any 
proposed  modifications  thereto  could  not  be 
adopted  without  first  being  discussed  and  accepted 
by  both  Governments,  in  negotiations  that  are  of 
the  exclusive  resort  of  the  Department  of  Foreign 
Relations.' '  (Appendix,  p.  208.)* 


*The  reasons  are  more  intimately  given  in  Sefior  Billinghurst  's  secret 
message  delivered  to  Congress  on  November  30,  1912,  in  behalf  of  the 
Hnneeus-Varela  Protocol : 

"I  will  read  the  pertinent  paragraphs  of  the  private  letter  ad- 
dressed to  me  on  December  7,  1898,  by  the  President  of  the  Republic 
of  Chile,  His  Excellency  don  Federico  Erraznuriz,  and  which  reads 
as  follows: 

'I  consider  it  almost  useless  to  express  to  you  my  true  regret 
because  the  protocol  signed  by  you  and  Sefior  Latorre,  fixing 
the  manner  for  the  compliance  with  what  has  been  stipulated 
in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  with  respect  to  the  provinces  of  Tacna 
and  Arica,  has  not  yet  been  passed  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies. 

'  This  business  has  been  made  by  some  into  a  political  ques- 
tion and  others,  interested  in  the  payment  of  the  Bolivian 
credits,  objected  thereto,  believing  that  after  an  agreement  with 
Peru  had  been  made,  they  would  lose  all  hopes  of  getting  their 
money. 

'  Then,  presented  themselves  the  last  complications  of  the  Ar- 
gentine question  which  completely  absorbed  the  attention  of  the 
Government,  of  the  Congress,  and  of  public  opinion,  and  that 
has  at  last  been  solved  in  the  manner  known  to  you. 

'  These  things  have  been  overlooked  in  Peru,  as  also  they  have 
forgotten  that  our  Chambers  are  governed  by  the  most  unfor- 
tunate of  regulations,  making  it  possible  for  a  small  minority  to 
obstruct  the  passing  of  any  project. 

*I  overlooked  to  tell  you  that  the  Cabinet  crisis  in  which  I 
find  myself  at  present,  caused  by  the  resignation  of  Sefior 
Latorre  and  his  Balmacedista  colleague  began  before  the  Ar- 
gentine question  was  ended,  and  it  has  been  another  obstacle 


The  First  Question.  77 

After  January  14,  1901,  the  diplomatic  correspond- 
ence related  almost  entirely  to  the  administration 
which,  it  was  alleged  by  Peru,  Chile  was  improperly 
imposing  on  Tacna  and  Arica.  In  the  course  of  these 
exchanges  incidental  references  were  made  to  the  fail- 
ure of  the  Protocol  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies. 

To  the  Peruvian  protests  at  the  delay  in  the  ap- 
proval of  the  Billinghurst-Latorre  Protocol  by  the 
Chamber  of  Deputies,  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs 
of  Chile  replied  on  January  19,  1901,  as  follows: 

"The  Government  of  Chile  has  cherished  no 
design  of  postponing  indefinitely  the  solution  of 
the  problem  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  nor  may  Your 
Excellency's  Government  justly  charge  it  with 
having  done  so. 

to  the  prompt  consideration  of  the  Tacna- Arica  problem  imme- 
diately upon  the  closing  of  the  Puna  de  Atacana  question. 

'In  the  belief  that  the  pending  pacts  with  Bolivia  interfere 
in  no  way  with  your  protocol,  we  have  ordered  the  liquidation 
of  the  credits  of  that  country  so  that  both  questions  can  be 
jointly  discussed  and  approved.  The  said  liquidation  is  almost 
concluded  and  I  hope  that  before  the  close  of  the  special  ses- 
sions we  shall  approve  both  negotiations. 

'You  know  my  own  ideas  about  the  subject,  and  from  what  I 
have  done  you  will  believe  that  I  wish  for  my  country  the  most 
cordial  friendship  with  Peru. ' 

********** 

"Confirming  the  statements  contained  in  the  above  letter,  I  quote 

in  part  the  correspondence  that  I  received  on  the  same  day  from  the 

Charge  of  the  Legation  of  Peru  in  Santiago,  don  Manuel  F.  Bena- 

vides,  and  which  says : 

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * 

'We  (Sefiores  Errazuriz  and  Benavides)  talked  after  a  few 
moments;  he  began  by  expressing  his  surprise  at  the  course  of 
events  relative  to  the  opposition  that  your  candidacy  has  ex- 
cited. I  answered  him  that  in  my  opinion  your  triumph  was 
very  probable  and  that  the  passing  of  the  protocol  would  com- 
pletely assure  it,  giving  you  great  prestige. 

'He  told  me  that  he  insisted  that  our  convention  be  approved 
as  soon  as  possible,  that  he  had  just. read  a  note  of  mine  ask- 
ing for  a  solving  of  this  question,  but  that  politics  were  in  such 
an  entanglement  that  I  should  be  a  little  more  patient,  that  in 
his  opinion  all  the  opposition  to  the  proocol  was  caused  by 
questions  of  private  interests  and  that  an  agreement  with  the 


78  The  Case  of  Chile. 

4  '  The  agreement  about  the  Billinghurst-Latorre 
protocol  is  the  most  conclusive  proof  that  this 
Government  has  carried  its  good  will  in  respect 
of  Peru  beyond  what  was  possible  within  the  con- 
stitutional limitations  within  which  it  would  have 
exercised  its  action  in  order  to  arrive  at  an  un- 
derstanding with  the  Government  of  Peru. 

"Your  Excellency  is  aware  that  the  proto- 
col mentioned  encountered  insuperable  obstacles 
among  the  membership  of  the  Honorable  Chamber 
of  Deputies,  when  it  was  submitted  to  its  consi- 
deration in  1898,  and  that  the  efforts  made  by  the 
Government  to  obtain  its  approval  have  been  in- 
efficacious. 

"As  the  discussion  of  the  protocol  has  been  in- 
definitely postponed,  different  circumstances,  in- 
dependent of  the  will  of  the  Government,  have  de- 
layed a  pronouncement  by  that  branch  of  the  legis- 
lative power,  thus  producing  the  consequent  para- 
lyzation  of  the  negotiations  subject  to  the  sanction- 
ing of  that  protocol  by  the  Chilean  Congress. 

creditors  of  Bolivia  was  a  necessary  formality;  that  all  those 
accounts  had  been  liquidated  except  that  of  an  American  con- 
cern, which  was  demanding  an  exorbitant  amount  of  money, 
and.  for  the  prompt  close  of  this  question  cabled  instructions, 
had.  been  sent  to  the  Minister  in  Washington. 

'He  assured  me  that  as  soon  as  this  question  was  closed  the 
Government  would  ask  preference  to  be  given  to  the  discussion 
of  the  Peruvian  and  Bolivian  protocols  and  that  both  would  be 
simultaneously  passed  without  difficulty,  which  he  assured  me 
would  take  place  before  the  close  of  the  special  session  of 
Congress. 

*  He  assured  me  also,  that  he  already  knew,  by  letter  of  Matias 
Errazuriz,  the  judgment  to  be  given  by  the  Queen  of  Spain, 
who,  the  case  having  been  placed  before  her,  would  decide  that 
the  vote  only  be  given  to  those  born  in  the  Provinces  of  Tacna 
and  Arica. 

'He  finished  by  saying  that  nothing  would  be  more  agreeable 
to  him  than  the  general  solution  of  this  problem  with  Peru. ' 

1  *  The  preceding  paragraphs  of  Sefior  Benavides '  letter  showed 
that  his  Excellency  Sefior  Errazuriz,  at  the  end  of  the  year  1898, 
knew  that  the  judgment  of  the  Queen  of  Spain,  in  case  the  plebiscite 
protocol  had  been  submitted  to  Her  Majesty,  would  have  been  en- 
tirely favorable  to  Peru.  In  spite  of  this  the  President  of  Chile, 
as  may  be  inferred  from  the  personal  letter  quoted  by  me,  did  not 
change  his  attitude  of  mind  in  regard  to  the  fulfillment  of  the  Bil- 
linghust-Latorre  protocol."     (Appendix,  pp.  506-509.) 


The  First  Questiox.  79 

"The  recent  motion  adopted  by  the  Chamber 
of  Deputies,  when  it  again  took  up  the  considera- 
tion of  the  Billinghurst-Latorre  protocol,  has  put 
an  end  to  this  uncertain  situation  that  hindered 
and  delayed  the  efforts  that  should  have  been 
carried  forward  by  both  Governments  with  a  view 
to  settling  the  problem  as  to  the  territories  of 
Tacna  and  Arica. 

"The  Chamber  of  Deputies  did  not  give  its 
approval  to  the  protocol  of  April  16,  1898,  because 
it  considers  that  it  ought  to  be  modified  in  some 
of  its  provisions,  and  it  has  voted  to  send  the  an- 
tecedents to  the  Government  in  order  that  it 
may  take  steps  to  introduce  the  necessary  modi- 
fications, thus  opening  fresh  negotiations  to  this 
effect  with  the  Chancellery  of  Peru. 

"The  question  that  so  greatly  interests  and  pre- 
occupies the  Governments  of  Chile  and  Peru  has 
remained  at  this  stage. 

"It  would  be  neither  just  nor  in  keeping  with 
the  truth  to  blame  either  of  the  Governments  for 
not  having  arrived  sooner  at  a  definitive  solution 
and  one  that  would  have  consulted  the  interests 
of  both  countries."  (Appendix,  pp.  223-224.) 

In  a  subsequent  note  of  February  19,  1901,  the  same 
Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  reiterated  these  views. 

In  the  spring  of  1901,  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Af- 
fairs of  Peru  issued  a  circular,  addressed  to  foreign 
governments,  reviewing  the  course  of  events  up  to 
that  time  in  relation  to  Tacna  and  Arica.  After  a 
lengthy  discussion,  he  in  conclusion  makes,  among 
other  declarations,  the  following  regarding  the  plebi- 
scite : 

"That  Peru  only  desires  the  fulfillment  of 
Clause  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace.  That  it  thinks 
its  rights,  according  to  that  clause,  permit  it  to 
demand:  *  *  * 


80  The  Case  of  Chile. 

"that  the  plebiscite  should  be  held  under  the 
authority  of  a  friendly  power;  that  in  the  plebi- 
scite only  the  Peruvian  natives  of  those  provinces, 
who  have  their  domicile  there,  shall  vote;  that 
the  result  of  the  plebiscite  shall  be  singular,  that 
is,  it  must  decide  as  to  the  future  nationality  of 
all  the  territory  which  the  said  clause  submitted 
to  temporary  occupation  by  Chile ;  #  *  * 

"That,  in  spite  of  the  stability  of  Peru's  rights, 
she  has  always  been  disposed  to  submit  any  ques- 
tion relative  to  the  plebiscite  to  arbitration." 
(Appendix,  p.  277.) 

Thus  the  period  of  1900-1901  closes  with  Peru  urg- 
ing the  holding  of  a  plebiscite  under  the  authority  of 
a  friendly  power  in  which  only  Peruvian  natives  shall 
vote — a  position  less  advanced  than  that  already 
agreed  to  in  the  Billinghurst-Latorre  Protocol.  The 
foregoing  review  of  this  period  illustrates  again  the 
difficulty  of  overcoming  the  obstacles  that  lie  in  the 
path  of  negotiating  a  special  protocol  satisfactory  to 
the  Governments  and  Legislatures  of  the  two  coun- 
tries. 

1905-1907  Negotiations  and  Correspondence. 

No  negotiations  regarding  the  execution  of  Article 
III  were  carried  on  between  1901  and  1905  for  the  rea- 
son that  Peru  suspended  diplomatic  relations  with 
Chile  during  this  period.  Meantime,  the  Decree  of 
May  4,  1904,  had  been  issued  by  Chile  with  reference 
to  the  Chilcaya  boundary  question,  and  the  Treaty  of 
Peace  between  Chile  and  Bolivia  had  been  signed  on 
October  20,  1904,  which  Treaty  superseded  the  Truce 
Agreement  of  April  4,  1884.  (Appendix,  pp.  327;  345; 
681;  688.)  This  Decree  and  Treaty  brought  forth  pro- 
tests on  the  part  of  Peru  against  the  alleged  effort  of 


The  Fiest  Question.  81 

Chile  to  fix  the  boundaries  of  Tacna  and  Arica  without 
Peru's  approval.  Chile  replied  to  these  protests  in 
due  course.  (Appendix,  pp.  327-370,  inclusive.)  This 
correspondence  related  almost  entirely  to  the  ques- 
tion of  boundaries  but  in  the  course  of  it  Peru  urged 
the  desirability  of  immediate  execution  of  the  plebi- 
scite. (Appendix,  p.  347.)  Also,  for  the  first  time, 
Peru  takes  the  position  that  the  plebiscite  was  to  have 
been  held  on  the  expiration  of  the  ten  years  of  occu- 
pation. The  Peruvian  Minister  said  in  his  note  of 
April  25,  1905: 

"Your  Excellency  insinuates  the  idea  that  the 
date  on  which  the  plebiscite  was  to  be  effected 
was  not  peremptorily  fixed  in  the  Treaty  of  An- 
con;  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  whether 
it  was  stipulated  in  it  that  the  plebiscite  was 
to  be  held  on  the  expiration  of  the  ten  years  of 
occupation,  that  is,  on  March  28,  1894,  without  its 
being  materially  necessary  to  indicate  that  date; 
for  it  would  be  justly  determined  by  designating 
it  by  years,  which  began  to  be  reckoned,  accord- 
ing to  the  treaty,  after  it  was  ratified. 

"When  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  was  negotiated 
and  approved,  and  afterward,  at  all  times,  the 
Chilean  Chancellery  understood  it  thus,  invari- 
ably, without  ever  having  maintained  any  con- 
trary opinion."  (Appendix,  p.  366.) 

In  1906,  at  the  instance  of  Chile,  Peru  sent  Seiior 
Alvarez  Calderon  to  Santiago  to  continue  the  nego- 
tiations, thus  renewing  diplomatic  intercourse  be- 
tween the  two  countries.  As  these  negotiations  were 
without  result,  it  is  unnecessary  to  discuss  them  here. 

1908-1910  Correspondence. 

After  the  failure  of  the  negotiations  of  Seiior  Cal- 
deron, Chile  invited  his  successor,  Seiior  Seoane,  to 


82  The  Case  of  Chile. 

open  new  negotiations.  They  began  in  March,  1908, 
and  continued  intermittently  until  March,  1910,  when 
Peru  again  severed  diplomatic  relations  with  Chile, 
and  these  have  never  been  restored.  (Appendix,  pp. 
370-445.)  In  this  period,  details  of  the  plebiscite  were 
fully  discussed  by  the  representatives  of  the  two  Gov- 
ernments. In  the  beginning,  Chile  proposed  that  the 
discussion  of  the  special  protocol  relative  to  the  plebi- 
scite be  joined  with  the  discussion  of  the  negotiation 
of  certain  commercial  conventions  and  also  a  conven- 
tion in  relation  to  the  payment  of  the  ten  million  dol- 
lars. As  to  the  special  protocol  for  the  holding  of  the 
plebiscite,  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  made  the 
following  comment  as  to  the  plebiscitary  provisions  in 
Article  III: 

"Your  honor  is  well  aware  that  the  treaty  of 
1883,  in  leaving  to  the  resolution  of  a  plebiscite 
the  determination  of  the  definitive  nationality  of 
Tacna  and  Arica,  did  not  make  it  clear  what  ought 
to  be  understood  by  this  plebiscite,  nor  did  it  fix 
either  the  manner  or  the  form  of  its  execution. 
These  omissions  may  not  be  reasonably  attributed 
to  an  oversight  on  the  part  of  the  negotiators, 
but  to  an  implicit  recognition  that  the  procedure 
adopted  could  be  no  other  than  that  of  the  plebi- 
scites incorporated  in  the  history  of  international 
law. 

"My  Government,  however,  desiring  now,  as 
formerly,  to  arrive  at  an  amicable  solution,  would 
be  disposed  not  to  adhere  strictly  to  rights  con- 
ferred upon  it  by  the  spirit  and  the  law  of  clause 
III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  and  not  to  keep,  either, 
exactly  to  the  realm  in  which  publicists  and  diplo- 
matic precedents  place  plebiscitary  conventions, 
when  Peru,  on  her  part,  will  facilitate  understand- 
ing by  renouncing  extreme  claims  that  would  un- 
questionably frustrate  it."   (Appendix,  p.  P>77.) 


The  Fikst  Question.  83 

The  Minister  then  went  on  to  discuss  the  qualifica- 
tions of  the  voters  in  the  following  language: 

"It  will  not  escape  the  enlightened  judgment 
of  Your  Excellency  that  the  right  to  vote  in  this 
case  does  not  possess  the  object  and  significance 
that  the  internal  constitution  and  laws  of  every 
state  attribute  to  political  suffrage.  Its  character 
is  eminently  international,  inasmuch  as  it  is  a 
question  of  determining  to  which  country  belongs 
definitive  sovereignty  over  a  portion  of  territory. 
There  is  no  doubt  then  that  all  the  qualified  in- 
habitants of  the  territory  ought  to  be  called  on  to 
exercise  the  right  of  plebiscitary  suffrage ;  not 
alone  the  citizens  of  one  or  the  other  of  the  in- 
terested countries  that  may  be  residing  in  the 
territory  and  that  are  exempt  from  all  inability  or 
incapacity;  but  also  all  the  foreign  residents  that 
meet  the  same  requirements. 

1 '  The  wishes  of  foreigners  ought  to  be  consulted 
in  the  plebiscite,  both  because  their  right  was 
explicitly  recognized  in  the  treaty,  when  the  for- 
mula '  popular  vote'  was  employed,  and  because 
it  is  not  just  or  reasonable  to  deprive  them  of 
participation  in  a  referendum  as  to  the  fate  of 
the  land  in  which  they  have  established  their  in- 
terests or  have  brought  up  families,  and  to  the 
prosperity  of  which  they  have  contributed  to  a 
very  considerable  degree  by  their  productive  and 
persevering  labor."  (Appendix,  pp.  377-378.) 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  then  added  that, 
owing  to  the  fact  that  Chile  was  exercising  sov- 
ereignty over  Tacna  and  Arica,  she  should  designate 
the  personnel  who  were  to  preside  over  the  plebi- 
scitary act  and  that  he  saw  no  reason  why  Chilean 
authorities  in  making  up  the  election  boards  should 
not  grant  representation  to  citizens  of  Peruvian  na- 
tionality and  to  citizens  of  other  nationalities.  (Ap- 
pendix, p.  379.)     The  Minister  of  Peru  desired  to  dis- 


84  The  Case  of  Chile. 

associate  the  plebiscitary  protocol  from  the  other  con- 
ventions proposed  by  Chile  as  his  Government  "  de- 
sires to  proceed  at  once,  while  avoiding  complications, 
to  the  solution  of  the  plebiscitary  problem."  (Appen- 
dix, p.  381.) 

The  Minister  reiterated  his  opinion  that  "to  my  Gov- 
ernment the  plebiscitary  protocol  is  of  so  much  im- 
portance that  in  comparison  with  it  all  other  questions 
assume  a  secondary  place.' '  (Appendix,  p.  385.)  The 
Minister  then  takes  issue  with  the  Chilean  position 
that  the  exercise  of  sovereignty  and  possession  in  re- 
spect of  Tacna  and  Arica  gives  her  the  right  to  control 
the  plebiscitary  proceeding.  He  discussed  at  length 
certain  precedents  found  in  the  history  of  European 
plebiscites,  and  concluded  with  the  following  statement : 

"Although  the  sincere  promises  of  impartiality 
that  Your  Excellency  is  pleased  to  reiterate  do 
not  awaken  doubts,  I  have  the  honor  to  remind 
you  that  expectations  regarding  Tacna  and  Arica 
exist  not  only  in  Chile,  but  also  in  Peru;  there- 
fore, according  to  the  fundamental  precepts  of 
justice,  the  only  logical  deduction  of  that  right,  in 
principle  equal,  is  that  the  two  republics  should 
have  an  identical  share  and  positive  identical 
assurances,  in  order  that  the  plebiscite  may  ex- 
press, with  the  testimony  of  both,  the  verdict  of 
the  people. 

"This  was  the  basis  accorded  in  the  Billing- 
hurst-Latorre  Protocol.' '  (Appendix,  p.  400.) 

Then  the  Minister  took  up  the  question  of  the  na- 
tionality of  the  voters,  on  this  point  he  said: 

"Until foreigners  shall  become  nationalized,  they 
retain  their  juridical  character  of  foreigners.  In- 
asmuch as  they  do  not  loose  the  bonds  of  their 
own  sovereignty,  nor  acquire  those  of  another, 


The  Fiest  Question.  85 

they  are  deprived  of  political  rights  in  the  place 
of  their  residence;  and  when  a  transfer  of  terri- 
tory occurs,  without  their  being  required  to  make 
any  declaration,  their  personal  status  remains 
unchanged. 

* '  The  plebiscitary  vote  in  the  present  case  is  of 
a  very  peculiar  character ;  it  not  only  makes  effec- 
tive the  participation  of  the  citizen  in  the  man- 
agement of  public  affairs,  but  particularly  in  the 
choice  of  a  definite  sovereignty  for  the  territory. 
Its  political  character  alone  would  be  sufficient 
to  exclude  from  it  all  foreigners,  without  excep- 
tion, since  constitutional  science  dogmatically  de- 
prives them  of  that  right  everywhere. 

"If  suffrage  is  of  such  a  nature  that  its  exer- 
cise may  not  be  granted  to  the  other  citizens  of 
the  interested  countries,  much  less  is  it  feasible 
to  claim  that  it  should  be  granted  as  a  privilege 
to  foreigners.  Tacna  and  Arica  are  Peruvian 
provinces;  and,  although  citizens  of  Peru,  not 
born  in  them,  would  be  denied  the  vote,  the  citi 
zens  or  subjects  of  other  nations  would  have  a 
right  to  it,  they — that  is,  those  who,  juridically, 
it  ought  to  be  supposed,  have  no  interest  in  the 
act — being  thus  in  a  more  advantageous  po- 
litical position  than  that  of  such  Peruvian  citi- 
zens. Your  Excellency's  enlightened  judgment 
will  spare  me  the  necessity  of  pointing  out  the 
absurdity  of  such  a  conclusion. 

"If  the  plebiscite  is  an  exclusive  right  of  sov- 
ereignty, and  if  foreigners  are  not  affected  by  its 
outcome,  it  is  obvious  that  nothing  would  justify 
the  intrusion  of  those  guests  in  this  act  of  trans- 
cendental consequence  only  to  the  political  collec- 
tivity of  which  they  do  not  form  a  part. 

i  <  rp0  gTant  them  the  vote  is  to  attribute  to  them 
condominion,  equally  with  the  owners,  over  a  ter- 
ritory in  which  they  temporarily  reside ;  seigniory 
over  those  that  offered  them  hospitality,  to  the 
extreme  of  deciding  as  to  their  future,  thus  wound- 
ing the  sacred  love  of  the  country ;  is  to  authorize 


86  The  Case  of  Chile. 

them,  by  thus  influencing  the  dispossession  and 
denationalization  of  the  native,  to  violate  neutral- 
ity, which  in  every  international  dispute,  is  im- 
posed upon  them  by  the  most  elemental  rules  of 
law."  (Appendix,  pp.  400-401.) 

The  Minister  then  makes  an  effort  to  show  that  Chilean 
citizens  resident  in  Tacna  and  Arica  are  to  be  ranked 
as  foreigners.  His  discussion  of  the  subject  is  exten- 
sive involving  references  to  the  Constitution  and  laws 
of  Chile  and  to  foreign  plebiscite  precedents,  and  there- 
fore only  an  extract  will  be  given  from  his  argument 
as  follows : 

"Chilean  citizens  resident  in  the  two  provinces 
are  as  much  f  oreigners  in  them  as  others. 

"Without  rights  in  Peruvian  sovereignty,  with- 
out the  outcome  of  the  plebiscite's  affecting  their 
personal  status,  the  circumstance  of  their  votes 
weighing  in  favor  of  Chile,  not,  indeed,  as  a  viola- 
tion of  neutrality,  but  as  an  effective  contribution 
to  the  act  of  conquest,  renders  their  disability  even 
more  evident. 

1  *  The  third  clause  of  the  treaty  provides  that  at 
the  expiration  of  the  period  of  ten  years  'a  plebi- 
scite will  decide  by  popular  vote'  whether  the  ter- 
ritories of  Tacna  and  Arica  shall  remain  defini- 
tively under  the  dominion  and  sovereignty  of  Chile 
or  whether  it  shall  continue  to  be  a  part  of  the 
Peruvian  territory. 

"Your  Excellency  deigns  to  suppose  that  the 
i popular  vote'  required  is  that  of  all  the  residents, 
including  that  of  foreigners  that  have  established 
their  interests  and  have  brought  up  families  in  the 
localities  to  the  prosperity  of  which  they  have  con- 
tributed to  a  very  considerable  degree  by  there 
persevering  and  productive  labor. 

"If  the  consequence  deduced  from  the  last  as- 
sertion were  correct,  it  would  be  sufficient  to  serve 


The  Fikst  Question.  87 

as  a  basis  for  the  recognition  of  their  political 
rights. 

"  However,  this  theory  is  an  infringement  of 
Chilean  legislation,  which  prevents  their  partici- 
pation even  in  municipal  affairs. 

"In  the  case  of  the  foreign  resident,  it  is  fair  to 
assume  instability:  the  desire  to  return  to  the 
country  with  which  he  has  not  severed  his  ties,  to- 
gether with  the  new  family  and  fortune  acquired 
abroad. 

"For  this  reason  it  is  not  improper  to  assume 
that,  in  the  event  of  a  plebiscitary  conflict,  indo- 
lence would  incline  hi  mto  tranquillity  at  all  costs. 

' i  Those  that  truly  desire,  whatsoever  their  place 
of  domicile,  in  addition  to  peace,  both  the  present 
and  the  future  welfare  of  the  region  are  the  na- 
tives themselves,  who  in  its  defence,  from  a  sense 
of  obligation  and  patriotism,  sacrifice  their  prop- 
erty, their  families  and  their  lives."  {Appendix, 
pp.  403-404.) 

With  this  correspondence  the  discussion  in  Santiago 
closed  for  the  time  being. 

In  August,  1908,  the  new  Chilean  Minister  arrived 
at  Lima  to  urge  the  Peruvian  Government  to  con- 
tinue the  discussion.  The  latter  manifested  its 
willingness  to  present  its  views  as  to  the  means  of 
carrying  out  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  but  for  one  rea- 
son or  another  not  pertinent  to  this  review  the  con- 
sideration of  the  manner  of  holding  the  plebiscite  was 
not  taken  up  in  correspondence  until  late  in  the  sum- 
mer of  1909.  The  correspondence  for  the  remainder  of 
this  period  consisted  for  the  most  part  of  denounce- 
ment by  Peru  and  defense  by  Chile  of  the  so-called 
1 '  Chileanization ' '  measures  which  the  southern  Repub- 
lic was  reputed  to  be  carrying  out  in  the  territory  of 
Tacna  and  Arica.  {Appendix,  pp.  414-492.)  Incident- 
ally, however,  both  countries  urged  the  desirability  of 


88  The  Case  of  Chile. 

adhering  to  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  by  holding  the  plebi- 
scite since  it  was  the  best  means  of  restoring  that  good 
neighborliness  which  ought  to  mark  the  relations  of 
continguous  nations. 

Notwithstanding  the  general  theme  of  the  correspon- 
dence, Chile  made  a  strong  effort  in  October,  1909,  to 
seek  a  basis  of  accord  in  regard  to  a  plebiscite.  The 
Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  Senor  Agustin  Edwards, 
presented  to  Peru  through  the  Chilean  Legation  in 
Lima  a  memorandum  embodying  a  plan  for  holding  the 
plebiscite  patterned  after  the  Billinghurst-Latorre 
Protocol  which  had  always  been  considered  in  Peru  to 
be  the  ideal  solution.  The  plan,  however,  did  not  in- 
clude the  submission  to  arbitration,  as  did  the  Billing- 
hurst-Latorre Protocol,  of  the  qualifications  of  the 
voters  and  the  secrecy  of  the  ballot.  In  these  respects 
Senor  Edwards  endeavored  to  carry  out  the  mandate 
of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  in  which  it  returned  the 
Protocol  of  1898  to  the  Executive  for  further  negotia- 
tion. (Appendix,  p.  423.)  On  November  5,  1909,  Peru 
suggested  certain  modifications  in  the  Chilean  plan 
which  brought  out  clearly  the  points  of  difference  be- 
tween the  two  countries.  (Appendix,  p.  424.)  They  dif- 
fered mainly  in  the  following  respects.  Chile  desired 
that  the  date  of  the  plebiscite  be  postponed  until  the 
completion  of  the  Arica-La  Paz  railroad  which  she 
estimated  would  be  finished  in  1911,  whereas  Peru 
suggested  the  organization  of  the  Directive  Board 
within  three  months  after  the  date  of  the  signature  of 
the  protocol.  Chile  proposed  a  secret  ballot  while 
Peru  desired  an  open  ballot.  Chile  stipulated  that  the 
voters  should  be  Chileans,  Peruvians  and  foreigners 
having  a  residence  of  six  months  in  Tacna  and  Arica ; 
Peru,  that  they  should  be  Chileans  and  Peruvians  hav- 
ing a  residence  since  July  1,  1907,  and  also  those  born 


The  Fikst  Question.  89 

in  Tacna  and  Arica.  Chile  insisted  on  the  right  to 
preside  over  the  Plebiscitary  Board  and  Peru  con- 
tended that  a  neutral  should  preside.  Thus  on  the  mat- 
ters of  date  of  holding  the  plebiscite,  secrecy  of  the 
ballot,  qualifications  of  voters,  and  the  presidency  of 
the  Plebiscitary  Board,  the  two  countries  were  in  dis- 
agreement. There  were  other  minor  points  of  differ- 
ence which  have  not  been  mentioned.  Obviously  the 
two  countries  were  as  far  as  ever  from  an  agreement. 
And  there  seemed  to  be  no  effective  means  of  bringing 
them  together,  although  it  appears  that  certain  third 
powers  were  interesting  themselves  at  this  time  in 
bringing  about  an  accord. 

On  March  3,  1910,  Seiior  Edwards,  in  a  note  dealing 
with  the  Peruvian  protests  against  the  Chilean  meas- 
ures in  Tacna  and  Arica,  which  he  vigorously  defended, 
again  advanced  his  plan  of  October,  1909,  in  a  much  ex- 
panded and  somewhat  modified  form,  and  replied  in 
detail  to  the  Peruvian  objections  to  his  plan.  (Appen- 
dix, p.  426.) 

Peru,  however,  regarding  her  protests  against  the 
so-called  repressive  acts  of  Chile  in  Tacna  and  Arica 
as  useless,  ordered  her  Minister  at  Santiago  to  return 
home  without  answering  Seiior  Edwards  proposals  of 
March  3,  1910  (Appendix,  pp.  445;  492)  ;  and  so  ended 
another  vain  attempt  to  reach  an  agreement  in  regard 
to  the  manner  of  carrying  out  the  plebiscite. 

Since  that  date  diplomatic  relations  between  the  two 
countries  have  remained  severed  up  to  the  present  day. 

1912  Negotiations. 

Although  diplomatic  relations  between  Chile  and 
Peru  were  severed,  efforts  were  made  through  un- 
official channels  to  reach  a  basis  of  an  agreement  in 
regard  to  the  manner  of  carrying  out  the  plebiscite. 


90  The  Case  of  Chile. 

The  result  of  these  unofficial  efforts,  however,  was 
an  exchange  of  telegrams  directly  between  the  Min- 
isters of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Chile  and  Peru,  dated 
November  10,  1912,  and  known  as  the  Huneeus- 
Valera  Protocol  of  that  year — a  protocol  which,  to 
use  the  words  of  President  Billinghurst  of  Peru, 
"took  into  account  as  far  as  possible  the  interests 
of  Peru/'  (Appendix,  pp.  495-500.)  The  arrange- 
ment arrived  at  in  these  telegrams  was  the  result  of  a 
compromise  of  the  positions  which  both  countries  as- 
sumed in  the  1909-1910  exchange  of  views.  For  ex- 
ample, it  provided  for  a  postponement  of  the  plebiscite 
to  the  year  1933;  the  directive  committee  was  to  be 
presided  over  by  the  President  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  Chile;  persons  born  in  Tacna  and  Arica  as  well  as 
Chileans  and  Peruvians  who  have  resided  there  for 
three  years  were  to  be  entitled  to  vote;  all  voters  must 
be  able  to  read  and  write. 

This  arrangement  is  of  special  importance  in  view  of 
the  motives  of  the  countries  that  prompted  the  post- 
ponement of  the  plebiscite  to  1933.  These  motives  are 
nowhere  better  set  forth  than  in  the  secret  message  de- 
livered by  President  Billinghurst  to  the  Peruvian 
Congress,  November  30,  1912,  advocating  the  approval 
of  this  arrangement.  The  importance  of  the  state- 
ments made  by  him  at  that  time  and  in  those  circum- 
stances warrants  a  somewhat  copious  quotation  from 
his  message.    President  Billinghurst  said: 

"In  the  light  of  truth,  appreciating  with  up- 
right and  serene  mind  the  grave  problem  of  Tacna 
and  Arica,  considering  its  antecedents  and  the  ir- 
revocable character  of  the  facts,  which  although 
it  is  possbile  to  appreciate  them  in  different  ways 
in  regard  to  their  form  and  meaning,  it  is  impos- 
sible in  any  way  to  destroy  them ;  that  problem  can 


The  First  Question.  91 

only  be  solved  as  it  now  stands,  by  the  use  of  force, 
that  is  by  war  declared  by  Peru,  or  by  the  adop- 
tion of  diplomatic  methods  that,  without  overlook- 
ing her  rights,  and  without  loss  of  honor,  would 
allow  our  country  in  the  course  of  time  to  solve 
the  present  difficulties  and  prepare,  with  all  the 
energies  of  her  patriotism  for  the  coming  of  an 
epoch  which  would  place  her  in  a  position  to  re- 
conquer, fairly  and  legally  in  peacetime  that  which, 
for  different  reasons,  was  unfortunately  lost  in 
war.  *  *  * 

"  My  Government  has  decided,  then,  frankly  and 
steadfastly,  for  the  second  alternative,  sure  that 
the  chosen  way,  is  in  obedience  to  the  same  spirit 
that  prevails  in  the  Billinghurst-Latorre  Treaty 
of  1898,  that  is  to  prepare  the  field  for  the  exercis- 
ing of  our  rights,  always  under  the  protection  of 
the  national  honor.  *  *  * 

' '  This  circumstance  implies,  furthermore,  a 
total  change  of  tactics  in  the  international  policy 
of  Chile,  since  it  puts  aside  here  its  reiterated  pre- 
hensions, in  regard  to  the  understanding  not  only 
of  the  text,  but  of  the  spirit  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon 
maintained  in  all  its  parts  and  in  every  possible 
way,  with  persistence  and  uniformity  by  her  states- 
men during  the  course  of  thirty  years,  and  accord- 
ing to  which  the  above  mentioned  Treaty  would  not 
mean,  so  far  as  Tacna  and  Arica  are  concerned, 
but  a  carefully  simulated  territorial  cession.  *  *  * 

"The  bases  established  in  the  agreement  that  is 
at  present  being  discussed  settled  the  way  and  the 
form  for  the  carrying  out  of  the  plebiscite,  deter- 
mining the  date  on  which  it  shall  take  place,  for  the 
purpose  of  knowing,  in  the  last  instance,  the  will  of 
the  Provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica  with  reference 
to  the  nationality  they  desired  to  adopt.  The  ab- 
sence of  these  bases,  set  forth  as  they  are  in  a 
vague  manner  in  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon 
has  been  one  of  the  causes  if  not  the  pretext  that 
Chile  has  had  for  continuing  the  occupation  de 
facto  of  that  part  of  our  territory,  thus  exceeding 
the  ten-year  period  of  possession  referred  to  in 
the  same  article.  #  *  * 


92  ,       The  Case  of  Chile. 

"A  period  of  twenty-one  years  has  been  agreed 
to  for  the  carrying  out  of  the  plebiscite,  too  long  a 
period  if  we  consider  it  from  the  sentiment  of  na- 
tionality— a  reasonable  period  if  we  consider  it  in 
the  light  of  the  present  facts  and  the  dictates  of 
foresight. 

"  Would  the  immediate  carrying  out  of  the 
plebiscite  be  suitable  for  Peru?  To  endorse 
this  statement  would  mean  taking  the  daringreso- 
lution  of  legalizing,  without  advantage  and  in  a 
precipitate  and  inconceivable  manner,  the  occupa- 
tion by  Chile.  To  believe  this  it  is  only  necessary 
to  look  at  it  with  open  eyes  and  a  clear  conscience. 

"  After  a  long  time  has  elapsed  and  after  the 
events  have  taken  place,  caused  first  by  disasters 
and  then  by  the  efforts  and  aimless  attempts  of 
our  Chancellery;  and  considering  the  economic 
position  of  the  Republic,  some  time  must  neces- 
sarily elapse  before  the  consolidation  of  her  public 
institutions,  the  strengthening  of  her  finances,  be- 
fore her  energies  are  restored,  and  her  morale 
raised  so  as  at  last  to  place  our  country  in  a  condi- 
tion for  fighting  and  victory.    And  in  the  lif e*of  a 

nation  this  is  certainly  not  the  work  of  a  moment. 

#  •  • 

"As  far  as  time  is  concerned  twenty-one  years 
shall  elapse,  a  period  of  time  in  which  the  Peru- 
vian element  will  enjoy  in  Tacna  and  Arica, 
as  in  any  other  part  of  Chile,  all  the  rights  and 
guaranties  accorded  to  foreign  residents  by  the 
Constitution  and  other  laws  of  that  country,  a  pe- 
riod of  time  in  which,  thanks  to  peaceful  relations 
maintained  by  reciprocal  interests,  will  surely 
allow,  by  reason  of  the  good  name  of  the  two  na- 
tions and  as  homage  to  the  harmony  and  civiliza- 
tion of  the  country,  the  fulfillment  of  its  designs, 
both  countries  being  inspired  by  "the  dictates  of 
justice  and  fair  dealing.  *  *  * 

"Instead  of  the  failure  of  the  negotiations  car- 
ried on  in  America  for  intervention  or  cooperation 
in  the  solution  of  the  conflict,  in  the  sense  of  Peru 
expressly  resigning  the  most  valuable  part,  from 
the  industrial  and  economic  point  of  view,  of  the 


The  First  Question.  93 

occupied  territory,  this  agreement  offers  the  ex- 
pectation of  its  total  reincorporation  as  there  are 
grounds  for  hoping,  if  the  Peruvian  patriotism 
puts  forth  all  its  available  resources  during  the 
twenty-one  years  that  will  elapse  for  the  carrying 
out  of  the  plebiscite. ' '  (Appendix,  p.  503.) 

It  is  clear  from  the  paragraphs  quoted  above  that  the 
controlling  motive  of  Peru  in  postponing  the  plebiscite 
to  1933  was  the  opportunity  which  this  interval  offered 
her  to  recuperate  her  exhausted  energies  and  to  pre- 
pare to  reclaim  the  lost  provinces  through  a  future 
plebiscite.  It  is  fair  also  to  conclude  that  by  entering 
into  this  agreement  Peru  waived  any  contentions  which 
she  may  have  theretofore  advanced  that  the  plebiscite 
should  have  been  held  forthwith  upon  the  expiration  of 
the  ten-year  period  or  that' it  was  too  late  within  the 
meaning  of  Article  III  to  hold  a  plebiscite  to  deter- 
mine the  definitive  sovereignty  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

After  some  twenty  years  of  negotiations  and  corres- 
pondence this  was  only  the  second  arrangement  which 
it  had  been  possible  to  negotiate  in  regard  to  the  man- 
ner of  carrying  out  the  plebiscite.  It  was  unfortunate- 
ly impossible  to  convert  this  telegraphic  arrangement 
into  a  formal  protocol  and  to  submit  the  same  to  the 
respective  legislatures  of  the  two  countries  for  their 
approval. 

1921  Negotiations. 

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  diplomatic  relations 
between  the  two  countries  still  remained  interrupted, 
Chile  again  in  1921  endeavored  to  renew  negotiations 
with  reference  to  carrying  out  the  plebiscite  by  intro- 
ducing a  telegraphic  correspondence  directly  between 
the  Ministers  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  two  countries, 
Senor  Ernesto   Barros  and   Senor   Alberto  Salomon, 


94  The  Case  of  Chile. 

respectively.  {Appendix,  pp.  536-584.)  Sefior  Barros  on 
behalf  of  Chile  proposed  that  the  negotiations  should 
proceed  on  the  basis  of  the  arrangement  reached  in  the 
so-called  Huneeus-Valera  Protocol  of  1912,  and  indi- 
cated that  an  earlier  date  for  holding  the  plebiscite 
than  the  date  in  that  Protocol,  viz.,  1933,  would  be  ac- 
ceptable to  Chile.    Sefior  Barros  said: 

' '  The  fact  of  our  country  exercising  sovereignty 
over  Tacna  and  Arica,  as  expressly  stated  in  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon,  makes  the  postponement  of  the 
plebiscite  advantageous  because  of  a  possible 
natural  increase  of  its  interests  during  the  course 
of  years;  but  Chile,  because  of  a  high  spirit  of 
continental  cordiality,  is  ready  to  accept  an  earlier 
date  than  that  specified  in  the  agreement  of  1912 
for  the  fulfillment  of  the  plebiscite. 

"Inspired  by  these  purposes,  my  Government 
invites  Your  Excellency's  Government  without  loss 
of  time,  to  carry  out  the  agreement  reached  in  No- 
vember of  1912  in  order  to  verify  in  Tacna  and 
Arica  the  plebiscite  provided  for  in  Clause  3d  of 
the  Treaty  of  Ancon."  (Appendix,  p.  538.) 

This  proposal  was  not  acceptable  to  Sefior  Salomon 
who  charged  that  Chile  had  "violated  the  greater  part 
of  the  Articles  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  and  Friendship 
of  October  20,  1883,"  and  proposed  to  submit  jointly, 
under  the  auspices  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  to  arbitration  "the  entire  question  of  the  South 
Pacific."  (Appendix,  p.  542.) 

Senor  Barros  in  his  answer  of  December  20,  1921, 
without  declining  arbitration  asked  to  be  advised  more 
specifically  as  to  the  scope  of  the  arbitration  suggested 
by  Sefior  Salomon,  and  made  the  following  reply  to 
Senor  Salomon's  charge  as  to  violations  of  the  Treaty 
of  Ancon : 


The  First  Question.  95 

"Your  Excellency  has  thought  opportune  to  set 
forth  strange  statements,  for  which  no  proof  is 
given,  or  could  be  given,  to  the  effect  that  Chile  has 
violated  almost  all  the  clauses  of  the  Treaty  of 
Peace  and  Friendship  of  1883. 

"I  shall  not  exert  myself  to  call  Your  Excel- 
lency's attention  to  the  fact  that  it  would  be  im- 
possible for  Chile  to  commit  such  a  violation,  since 
the  clauses  referred  to  establish  obligations  not 
imposed  on  Chile  in  favor  of  Peru,  but  exactly  the 
reverse. 

"However,  permit  me  to  avail  myself  of  this  op- 
portunity to  state  that  the  only  provisions  of  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon  which  have  not  yet  been  fully 
complied  with  are  the  often  mentioned  Article  III 
and  Article  XII,  the  latter  prescribing  the  payment 
of  certain  indemnities  by'  the  Government  of  Your 
Excellency,  for  the  indemnification  of  certain 
Chilean  citizens.  Your  Excellency  well  knows  that 
the  Chilean  Government  cannot  in  any  way  be 
made  responsible  for  the  non-fulfillment  of  those 
two  provisions."  (Appendix,  p.  545.) 

On  December  24,  1921,  Sefior  Salomon  replied,  spe- 
cifying certain  alleged  violations  by  Chile  of  the  Treaty 
of  Ancon  and  explaining  the  scope  of  his  proposal  to 
be  a  "full  arbitration"  (to  be  agreed  upon  in  Wash- 
ington) of  all  pending  questions,  which  phrase  he  in- 
terpreted to  include  all  infractions  of  the  Treaty  of 
Ancon  alleged  by  Peru  against  the  Government  of 
Chile  . 

On  December  26,  1921,  Seiior  Barros  replied  in  part 
as  follows : 

i  i  #  #  *  my  Q-overnment  wiH  create  in  Washington 
a  mission  duly  instructed  to  attempt,  together 
with  the  mission  which  Your  Excellency's  Govern- 
ment may  send,  to  reach  a  settlement  of  the  pend- 
ing difficulties  and  fix,  in  agreements  which  will  be 


96  The  Case  of  Chile. 

submitted  for  the  approval  of  both  Governments, 
the  bases  and  matters  for  an  arbitration  to  solve 
those  differences  which  should  prove  impossible 
of  solution  through  direct  agreement  and  which 
may  be  indispensable  for  the  exact  and  true  fulfill- 
ment of  the  Treaty  of  1883."  (Appendix,  pp.  577- 
578.) 

On  December  28,  1921,  Senor  Salomon  telegraphed 
in  part  that : 

i  <  •  •  #  my  Government  has  at  no  time  intended  nor 
expressed  the  purpose  to  negotiate  directly  in 
Washington  for  the  purpose  of  reaching  an  agree- 
ment regarding  the  plebiscitary  difficulties,  but 
only  for  submitting  to  the  decision  of  an  arbitrator 
the  differences  which  are  impossible  to  remove  and 
solve  directly."  (Appendix,  p.  579.) 

The  telegraphic  correspondence  was  continued  but 
the  Governments  could  not  come  to  an  agreement  as  to 
whether  the  Chilean  or  the  Peruvian  basis  was  to  be  the 
subject  of  discussion  in  Washington.  At  this  point  the 
President  of  the  United  States  invited  both  Govern- 
ments to  send  delegates  to  a  conference  in  Washington, 
as  has  already  been  related. 

The  Washington  Conference. 

The  invitation  of  the  President  of  the  United  States 
to  the  Governments  of  Chile  and  Peru  to  participate  in 
a  conference  in  Washington  had  for  its  express  pur- 
pose the  settlement  of  "the  existing  difficulties."  This 
phrase  by  reference  to  the  context  of  the  invitation  re- 
lated to  "the  long  standing  controversy  with  respect  to 
the  unfulfilled  provisions  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon." 
(Appendix,  p.  588.)  The  acceptance  of  this  invitation  by 
Chile  and  Peru  committed  them  to  a  single  subject  of 
discussion  at  Washington,  namely,  the  settlement  of 


The  First  Question.  97 

the  controversy  over  the  unfulfilled  provisions  of  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon  through  seeking  a  method  of  fulfill- 
ing those  provisions.  (Appendix,  pp.  589,  595.) 

This  idea  of  seeking  a  settlement  of  the  pending  con- 
troversy by  seeking  a  method  of  fulfilling  the  treaty 
was  reiterated  in  the  first  speech  of  the  Chilean  Dele- 
gate at  the  opening  of  the  conference  on  May  15,  1922, 
and  was  the  central  theme  of  the  Chilean  argument 
throughout  the  conference  to  the  date  of  the  conclusion 
of  the  Protocol  and  Supplementary  Agreement  of  July 
20,  1922,  in  which  the  same  idea  is  explicitly  incorpo- 
rated. This  idea,  the  Chilean  Delegates  contended  was 
founded  on  the  universal  doctrine  of  respect  for  trea- 
ties and,  therefore,  necessarily  meant  the  carrying  out 
of  the  plebiscite  as  provided  in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon; 
for  that  treaty  set  no  date  for  the  holding  of  the  plebi- 
scite after  the  end  of  the  ten-year  period  and  fixed  no 
period  within  which  the  Special  Protocol  required  by 
Article  III  should  be  concluded.  Accordingly,  the 
Chilean  Delegation  made  several  proposals  aimed  to 
reaching  an  agreement  by  negotiation  or  arbitration  as 
to  the  manner  in  which  the  plebiscitary  proceeding 
should  be  held.  (Appendix,  pp.  609-633.) 

From  this  argument  of  Chile  in  the  conference  Peru 
endeavored  in  vain  to  disassociate  herself.  At  first 
she  completely  reversed  her  attitude  of  thirty  years  in 
favor  of  a  plebiscite  and  contended  that  "the  only  rea- 
sonable and  just  solution  consisted  in  the  complete  res- 
toration of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica  to  Peru,, 
without  a  plebiscite  (Appendix,  p.  610),  since  the  plebi- 
scite should  have  been  held  immediately  upon  the  ex- 
piration of  the  ten-year  period  at  which  time  the  out- 
come would  have  been  favorable  to  Peru.  (Appendix, 
p.  611.) 

Failing  to  find  a  basis  of  accord  in  this  contention, 
Peru  proposed  the  submission  to  arbitration  of  the 


98  The  Case  of  Chile. 

question  whether  or  not  the  plebiscite  should  be  held, 
and  if  so  under  what  conditions,  and  if  not  to  which 
country  Tacna  and  Arica  should  belong.  This  pro- 
posal, in  so  far  as  it  intended  to  settle  the  disposition 
of  Tacna  and  Arica  without  a  plebiscite,  amounted  to 
submitting  to  arbitration  the  determination  of  terri- 
torial sovereignty  which  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  provided 
should  be  determined  by  plebiscite  and  to  violating  the 
scope  of  the  Washington  Conference  which  met  to  find 
means  of  carrying  out  the  Treaty,  not  means  of  avoid- 
ing it.  (Appendix,  p.  615.) 

Both  countries  adhering  to  their  views  and  being 
unable  to  find  a  common  basis  of  accord,  their  Ambas- 
sadors in  Washington  informed  Secretary  of  State 
Hughes,  of  the  impasse  in  the  negotiations.  Owing  to 
the  good  offices  of  Mr.  Hughes,  the  delegations  were  at 
last  able  to  reach  an  agreement  as  set  forth  in  the  Pro- 
tocol and  Supplementary  Agreement  of  July  20,  1922. 

One  point  is  clear  Chile  stood  for  maintaining  the 
sanctity  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  and  Peru  for  breaking 
it  down.  The  latter  view,  however,  did  not  prevail, 
for  the  Protocol  and  Supplementary  Agreement  which 
concluded  the  conference  instills  new  life  and  vigor  into 
that  Pact.  Thus  in  the  Supplementary  Agreement, 
Clauses  1st,  2nd  and  3rd,  the  question  whether  a  plebi- 
scite shall  be  held  is  submitted  to  arbitration  "for  the 
purpose  of  determining  the  manner  in  which  the  stipu- 
lations of  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  shall  be 
fulfilled" — not  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  the  enforce- 
ment of  that  Article.  Moreover,  if  the  Arbitrator  finds 
for  a  plebiscite,  he  is  to  fix  the  conditions  thereof,  which 
would  carry  out  the  intention  and  purpose  of  the  spe- 
cial protocol  provided  for  in  Article  III.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  the  Arbitrator  finds  against  a  plebiscite,  the 
actual  situation  of  the  parties  in  respect  of  Tacna  and 


The  Fiest  Question.  99 

Arica  created  by  the  Treaty  remains  unchanged  pend- 
ing an  agreement  as  to  the  disposition  of  the  territory. 


From  the  foregoing  review  of  the  negotiations  and 
correspondence  relating  to  the  conclusion  of  a  special 
protocol  regarding  the  holding  of  a  plebiscite,  it  is 
manifest  that  the  difficulties  inherent  in  reaching  an 
agreement  on  the  many  points  involved,  which  would 
be  satisfactory  in  sentiment  and  dignity  to  the  Govern- 
ments and  legislatures  of  the  two  countries,  caused  the 
failure  to  conclude  a  special  protocol ;  that  the  idea  of 
a  plebiscite  as  the  means  of  settling  the  definitive  sov- 
ereignty of  Tacna  and  Arica  was  never  abandoned  by 
the  parties  to  the  Treaty  of  Ancon;  that  they  never 
contended  that  the  time  for  holding  the  plebiscite  had 
past,  until  this  view  was  presented  by  Peru  in  the 
Washington  Conference;  and  that  the  execution  of 
Article  III  has  always  been  the  basis  of  the  negotia- 
tions and  correspondence  in  the  past,  was  the  founda- 
tion of  the  convocation  of  the  Washington  Conference, 
is  the  central  thought  of  the  Washington  Protocol  and 
Supplementary  Agreement,  and  should  be  the  motive 
of  the  Arbitrator  in  reaching  a  decision  thereunder. 

(c)  The  Payment  of  the  Ten  Millions. 
Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  provides  in  re- 
spect of  the  payment  of  the  ten  million  dollars  as  fol- 
lows: 

"Either  of  the  two  countries  to  which  the  prov- 
inces of  Tacna  and  Arica  may  remain  annexed  [as 
a  result  of  the  plebiscite],  will  pay  to  the  other  ten 
millions  of  Chile  silver  dollars  or  Peruvian  soles 
of  the  same  weight  and  fineness. 

"A  special  protocol,  which  shall  be  considered 
an  integral  portion  of  the  present  treaty  will  pre- 


100  The  Oase  of  Chile. 

scribe  *  *  *  the  terms  and  time  for  the  payment  of 
the  ten  millions  by  the  nation  which  may  remain  in 
possession  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica." 
(Appendix,  p.  678.) 

As  has  been  pointed  out,  the  payment  of  the  ten 
millions  is  one  of  the  conditions  precedent  to  the  re- 
cession by  Chile  of  sovereignty  and  dominion  over 
Tacna  and  Arica.  The  payment  itself,  as  Article  III 
shows  is  conditioned  upon  (1)  a  plebiscite  being  held 
so  as  to  determine  the  country  obligated  to  make  the 
payment,  and  (2)  a  special  protocol  being  concluded 
with  reference  to  the  terms  and  time  of  making  the 
payment,  that  is,  an  agreement  regarding  the  manner 
of  payment.  Such  a  protocol  was,  it  seems  clear,  to 
set  forth  the  " terms  and  time"  of  payment,  even 
though  it  was  to  be  made  in  cash,  and  certainly,  if  it 
was  to  be  postponed  and  guaranteed  by  particular 
pledges  as  is  frequent  in  financial  arrangements  with 
countries  exhausted  by  the  drains  of  .an  unsuccessful 
war.  These  contingencies  were  no  doubt  in  the  minds 
of  the  negotiators  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  when  they 
made  the  provision,  that  they  did  for  the  payment  of 
the  ten  million  dollars. 

The  negotiations  and  correspondence  between  Chile 
and  Peru,  with  reference  to  the  relation  of  the  pay- 
ment to  the  duration  of  the  sovereignty  and  dominion 
of  Chile  over  Tacna  and  Arica,  have  already  been  dis- 
cussed. Likewise,  the  first  condition  preliminary  to 
the  payment,  namely,  the  holding  of  the  plebiscite,  has 
been  reviewed  and  need  not  be  further  treated  here. 
With  these  two  points  eliminated,  the  only  point  left 
for  consideration  here  is  the  second  condition,  namely, 
the  special  protocol  to  provide  the  manner  of  payment 
of  the  ten  millions.  The  negotiations  and  correspon- 
dence in  their  bearing  upon  this  point  will  now  be  re- 
viewed. 


The  First  Question.  101 

1893-1894  Negotiations. 

In  the  year  1893  several  conferences  were  held  in 
Lima  looking  to  the  negotiation  of  the  special  protocol 
required  by  Article  III.  In  the  course  of  these  confer- 
ences, Seiior  Jimenez,  on  behalf  of  Peru,  formulated' 
a  memorandum,  dated  August  19,  1893,  according  to 
which  the  northern  part  of  Tacna  and  Arica  was  to  be 
returned  to  Peru  before  the  plebiscite  and  the  so-called 
"indemnity"  of  ten  millions  was  to  be  paid  in  the  fol- 
lowing manner : 

"If  the  vote  should  be  favorable  to  Peru  in  both 
sections,  she  will  pay  to  Chile  the  indemnity  agreed 
in  the  Treaty  in  the  following  manner : 

"The  natural  and  manufactured  products  of 
Chile  and  their  respective  containers  will  be 
brought  in  free  of  import  duties  through  the  cus- 
tom-houses of  Peru  for  twenty-five  years,  and  they 
will  not  pay  in  the  territory  of  the  latter  country 
other  consumption  taxes  than  those  actually  in 
force  for  similar  national  products. 

"If  the  plebiscite  should  favor  Peru  in  the  zone 
from  the  Sama  to  the  Vitor  only,  the  proportionate 
idemnity  will  be  paid  in  the  same  way,  but  with  a 
reduction  of  the  period  of  free  entry  to  twenty 
years."  (Appendix,  p.  41.) 

This  proposal  was  declined  by  Chile.  (Appendix 
p.  46.)  The  conferences,  however,  were  continued  and 
finally  resulted  in  the  Jimenez-Vial  Solar  exchange  of 
notes  of  January  26,  1894,  in  which  the  manner  of  the 
payment  of  the  ten  millions  was  agreed  upon  by  the 
negotiators  as  follows : 

"II.  Whichsoever  of  the  two  countries  to  which 
the  said  provinces  shall  be  annexed  will  pay  to  the 


102  The  Case  of  Chile. 

other  ten  million  soles  stipulated  in  the  afore- 
mentioned Article  III,  in  bonds  of  the  public  debt, 
at  four  and  one-half  per  cent  interest  and  one  per 
cent  for  amortization.  The  bonds  of  Chile  will  be 
quoted  at  the  mean  rate  at  which  those  of  the  same 
kind  have  stood  during*  the  previous  six  months  in 
the  London  market,  and  the  bonds  of  Peru,  at 
the  rate  that  shall  be  agreed  on  between  the  two 
Governments,  which  must  be  at  least  sixty  per 
cent. 

"The  Government  that  shall  issue  the  said  bonds 
may,  at  any  time,  amortize  them  totally  or  parti- 
ally at  the  rate  at  which  they  were  accepted  at  the 
time  of  their  issuance. 

*  '  III.  Coupons  for  accrued  interest  and  matured 
bonds  will  be  received  in  payment  of  the  customs 
duties  of  the  country  that  may  issue  them.  (Ap- 
pendix, p.  53.) 

The  Jimenez-Vial  Solar  exchange  of  notes,  however, 
was  never  reduced  to  a  formal  protocol,  and  the  ques- 
tion of  the  payment  of  the  ten  millions  did  not  come  up 
again  for  discussion  until  the  conferences  of  1895. 

1895-1896  Negotiations. 

In  the  series  of  conferences  which  began  in  August, 
1895,  and  continued  for  several  months,  the  question 
of  the  payment  of  the  ten  millions  was  thoroughly  ex- 
amined in  all  its  aspects.  Peru's  financial  condition 
at  the  close  of  the  war  was  one  of  practical  insolvency 
and  her  internal  instability  during  the  latter  part  of 
the  conflict  and  for  several  years  after  its  termination, 
depreciated  the  value  of  her  currency  at  home  and  de- 
stroyed her  credit  abroad.  Her  recovery  during  the 
ten-year  period  had  not  been  as  rapid  as  had  been  ex- 
pected. The  bonds  .  of  her  foreign  debt  had 
become  unsaleable  and  were  not  quoted  in  the 
money    markets    of    the    world.     Consequently    the 


The  First  Question.  103 

issuance  of  bonds  which  had  been  the  basis  of 
the  Jimenez- Vial  Solar  arrangement  for  the  manner 
of  payment,  or  even  the  promise  to  pay  in  cash  at  a 
future  date  was  not  regarded  by  Chile  in  1895  and  1896 
as  a  satisfactory  compliance  with  Article  III  without 
some  substantial  guaranty  of  performance.  Chile  on 
her  part  was  ready  to  give  the  same  guaranties  of  .pay- 
ment as  she  asked  of  Peru,  and,  therefore,  her  request 
was  reciprocal  in  nature.  The  minutes  of  the  confer- 
ence of  August  20,  1895,  contains  the  following  sum- 
mary of  the  discussion  on  this  point : 

"The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  re- 
plied that  Peru  would  be  able  to  pay  the  indemnity 
that  might  pertain  to  her,  in  bonds  of  the  public 
debt  or  in  money,  within  a  period  that  would  not 
exceed  a  year,  reckoned  from  the  date  of  the  vote 
that  would  have  restored  to  her  the  provinces  of 
Tacna  and  Arica. 

"The  Minister  of  Chile  deemed  these  offers 
unacceptable;  neither  the  payment  in  bonds, 
for  this  would  be  equivalent  to  an  incomplete 
clearing  up  of  the  situation  and  would  leave  in  ex- 
istence between  Chile  and  Peru  the  relations  of 
creditor  and  debtor,  from  which  are  wont  to  result 
difficulties  or  troubles;  nor  payment  within  a  pe- 
riod, because  Chile  and  Peru  would  still  be  placed 
in  a  false  situation,  if  the  former,  as  seems  natural, 
should  have  to  continue  to  occupy  Tacna  and  Arica 
until  the  latter  should  complete  the  payment  of  the 
indemnity.  In  other  respects,  he  added,  the  period 
indicated  is  unnecessary,  because  Peru,  can,  from 
this  very  moment,  seek  the  sums  she  would  owe  to 
Chile  and  have  them  ready  against  the  time  when 
the  plebiscite  shall  have  been  effected,  which  will 
take  place  probably  within  a  year,  more  or  less, 
reckoned  from  this  date. 

"The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations,  re- 
quested   the    Plenipotentiary    of    Chile    to    make 


104  '     The  Case  of  Chile. 

his  proposal  more  precise  in  this  respect,  and  the 
latter  said  that  an  agreement  might  be  made  some- 
what like  the  following :  a  month  after  the  promul- 
gation of  the  plebiscitary  decision,  Chile,  if  the  de- 
cision were  adverse  to  her,  would  return  to  Peru 
the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica  and  Peru  would 
pay  to  Chile  the  sums  in  which  she  would  become 
indebted  to  her.  Chile,  in  turn,  would  contract  an 
identical  obligation.  It  is  understood,  of  course, 
that  this  payment  must  be  sufficiently  guaranteed. ' ' 
(Appendix,  p.  79.) 

The  conversations  then  turned  to  the  question  of  the 
period  of  payment — Chile  proposing  one  month  after 
the  announcement  of  the  result  of  the  plebiscite  and 
Peru  making  a  counter  proposal  of  six  months.  The 
Chilean  Minister,  in  urging  his  proposal,  pointed  out 
that  Peru  had  had  twelve  years  since  the  conclusion  of 
the  Treaty  of  Peace  to  prepare  for  the  financial  means 
of  fulfilling  it,  but  she  had  taken  no  steps  to  that  end. 
The  Chilean  Minister  also  made  the  following  state- 
ment, which  appears  in  the  minutes  of  the  meeting  of 
August  23rd : 

"The  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Chile  said, 
on  his  part,  that  he  insisted  on  considering 
sufficient  the  period  he  had  taken  occasion  to  indi- 
cate at  the  previous  conference,  for  these  two  rea- 
sons: first,  because  Peru  may  have  been  accumu- 
lating funds  for  the  ransom  of  the  provinces  of 
Tacna  and  Arica,  since  she  signed  in  Oc- 
tober, 1883,  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  in  which  was 
stipulated  the  payment  of  a  sum  of  money  by  her ; 
and,  second,  because  even  now  steps  might  be  taken 
to  obtain  these  funds,  she  thus  having  at  her  dis- 
posal, for  this  purpose,  a  period  of  more  than  a 
year,  which  would  unquestionably  be  the  one  that 
would  elapse  between  this  date  and  that  of  the 
promulgation  of  the  plebiscitary  decision."  {Ap- 
pendix, p.  81.) 


The  Fikst  Question.  105 

It  was  finally  agreed  to  fix  the  period  at  three  months. 
(Appendix,  p.  85.)  After  the  proposal  by  Peru  and  the 
rejection  by  Chile  of  the  mutual  renunciation  of  the 
payments  required  by  Article  III,  the  negotiators  took 
up  the  matter  of  guaranties,  to  which  Peru  was  op- 
posed in  principle,  as  the  following  extract  from  the 
minutes  of  the  conference  of  October  8,  1895,  shows : 

"The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  [of  Peru] 
denied  that  it  was  necessary  to  establish  other 
guaranties  than  those  that  might  be  deduced 
from  the  very  convention  to  which  recourse  should 
be  had  in  fixing  the  conditions  of  the  plebiscite  and 
from  the'  signatures  on  which  that  treaty  would 
depend;  that,  in  respect  of  the  obligation  of  the 
Government  of  Peru,  Chile  was  amply  guaranteed 
by  the  possession  of  the  pledge,  that  is,  the  terri- 
tory of  Tacna  and  Arica,  and  by  the  sentiment  of 
nationality,  which  is  the  best  possible  stimulus  and 
sufficient  in  any  case  to  guarantee  the  payment  of 
the  indemnity."  (Appendix,  pp.  85-86.) 

The  Chilean  Minister  replied  that  the  guaranties 
mentioned  were  not  in  the  opinion  of  his  Government 
sufficient  for  the  purpose: 

"The  Government  of  Chile,  he  said,  must  have 
believed  that  the  indefinite  retention  of  the  terri- 
tory would  not  be  such  a  guaranty,  since  this  would 
be  equivalent  to  Peru's  taking  the  longest  possible 
period  for  the  payment  of  the  indemnity,  and  that 
what  had  been  agreed  on  in  reference  to  periods 
would  have  no  effect."  (Appendix,  p.  88.) 

The  Chilean  position  was  in  substance  that,  if  the 
plebiscite  should  be  decided  in  favor  of  Peru,  it 
would  be  embarrassing  for  Chile  to  continue  in  pos- 
session and  to  exercise  the  rights  of  sovereignty  over 


106  The  Case  of  Chile. 

Tacna  and  Arica,  until  the  ten  millions  were  paid,  and 
that,  therefore,  the  period  for  the  payment  ought  to 
be  as  brief  as  possible  consistent  with  the  time  required 
for  evacuation,  and  that,  furthermore,  the  guaranty  of 
payment  should  be  ample,  for  the  reason  that  once 
Tacna  and  Arica  were  receded  to  Peru,  Chile's  secu- 
rity for  payment  through  their  possession  would  have 
disappeared.1  The  failure  of  these  conferences  to  pro- 
duce results  demonstrated  the  wisdom  of  the  Chilean 
position. 

The  discussion  of  this  point  was  continued  in  the 
conference  of  October  30th,  when  the  Minister  of  Chile 
said: 

"that  he  did  not  understand  why  the  min- 
ister of  foreign  relations  considered  unaccepta- 
ble a  request  the  object  of  which  was  to  assure 
the  efficacy  of  the  plebiscite  by  eliminating  the 
eventuality  that,  after  being  held,  the  decision 
might  not  be  carried  out  because  of  a  failure  to 
fulfill  the  obligations  contracted  by  one  of  the  par- 
ties. This  was  not  to  press  Peru,  and  to  prove 
that  no  such  purpose  existed,  if  the  minister 
of  foreign  relations  desired  to  take  time  to  pre- 


i  In  his  note  of  February  10,  1896,  the  Minister  of  Chile  expressed 
the  same  general  ideas  as  follows: 

* '  *  *  *  Indeed,  the  expediency  of  restricting  the  period  as 
much  as  possible  was  not  doubtful.  We  discussed  the  basis  of  this 
hypothesis — that  the  popular  vote  might  be  favorable  to  Peru — and 
I  said  that  this  would  oblige  our  governments  to  carry  out  the 
plebiscitary  decision  without  delay,  in  order  not  to  prolong  for  a 
greater  time  than  necessary  an  abnormal  situation  and  one  that 
would  necessarily  be  disagreeable  to  both  countries.  If  the  reincor- 
poration of  Tacna  and  Arica  with  Peru  were  decreed  by  the  people, 
Chile  would  be  under  obligation  to  hasten  to  surrender  that  territory 
wherein  her  authority  would  no  longer  have  dominion  or  prestige. 
Peru,  in  turn,  ought  also  to  feel  moved  irresistibly  to  hasten  with- 
out delay  to  the  call  of  her  former  provinces,  carrying  to  them,  as 
they  demanded  of  her  with  the  clamor  of  their  votes,  her  banner, 
her  authority  and  her  laws.  Ordinary  expediency  would  counsel  and 
impose  disoccupation. "  {Appendix,  p.  Ill;  See  also  Appendix,  p. 
122.) 


/ 


The  First  Question.  107 

pare  the  guaranty  and  to  ask  for  a  period  with 
this  object  in  view,  it  was  most  certain  that  the 
Government  of  Chile  would  oppose  no  difficulty 
to  agreeing  on  one.  In  this  way  the  plebiscite 
could  be  effected  with  the  assurance  that  all  its 
conditions  would  be  fulfilled,  because,  after  being 
held  and  being  favorable  to  Peru,  in  the  period 
already  agreed  on — three  months — or  in  another 
briefer  one,  Chile  would  have  returned  the  terri- 
tory, and  Peru  would  have  paid  the  indemnity. 

' 'The  minister  of  foreign  relations  said  that 
he  could  not  agree  to  the  last  statement  of 
the  minister  of  Chile,  because  the  plebiscitary 
decision  would  impose  the  obligation  of  an 
immediate  delivery  of  the  territory,  that  it  might 
not  be  subordinated  to  the  full  payment  of  the  ten 
millions,  since  the  treaty  mentioned  periods  and 
terms,  which  might  be  years,  and  since,  by  stipu- 
lating guaranties  that  would  absolutely  assure  the 
Government  of  Chile,  there  would  be  no  reason  to 
exact  any  further  guaranty,  that  is,  the  retention 
of  the  territory,  as  soon  as  the  guaranty  should 
answer  the  purpose  of  the  security  sought."  (Ap- 
pendix, pp.  80-90.) 

The  question  of  guaranty  of  payment  continued  to  be 
the  chief  obstacle,  to  any  agreement  during  the  con- 
ferences. On  December  31st,  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs  of  Peru  declared  in  the  conference  of  that 
date  that — 

"the  Chambers  had  fully  authorized  the  govern- 
ment to  raise  a  loan  of  ten  million  soles;  and  that, 
by  a  special  law  to  meet  the  respective  interest, 
it  had  placed  a  tax  on  the  salt  monopoly,  the  prod- 
uct of  which  would  be,  the  Government  estimated, 
a  million  soles,  annually,  as  a  minimum.  He  added 
that  this  security  could  be  duplicated,  but  that  in 
any  case,  Peru  would  engage  to  effect  the  delivery 
of  a  million  a  year,  encumbering  the  products  of 
the  custom  house  at  Callao,  which  is  the  republic's 


108  The  Case  of  Chile. 

most  reliable  source  of  income,  to  that  end.  This 
is  the  security,  the  minister  of  foreign  re- 
lations said,  that  the  Government  of  Peru  offers 
to  the  Government  of  Chile  until  she  succeeds  in 
placing  the  loan,  the  payment  of  which  could  not 
be  better  guaranteed;  and  all  this  without  preju- 
dice to  Chile's  retaining  the  territories  occupied 
and  receiving  the  revenues  from  the  custom  hotises 
in  them. "  (Appendix,  p.  96.) 

To  this  statement  the  Minister  of  Chile  made  the 
following  reply : 

nm  *  *  ft  wag  c}ear  th^  tne  Government  of 
Peru  had  occupied  itself  in  devising  means  to  se- 
cure as  a  loan  the  sum  of  the  eventual  ransom  of 
Taena  and  Arica,  but  that  had  not  demonstrated 
that  it  would  be  obtained  with  certainty.  Indeed, 
it  was  conceivable  that  the  capitalists  to  whom  it 
might  have  to  resort  would  not  furnish  the  money 
because  they  might  deem  the  security  of  the  mo- 
nopoly on  salt  insufficient,  and,  in  that  case,  since 
Peru  would  not  have  been  able  to  meet  the  pay- 
ment of  the  indemnity,  the  plebiscitary  decision 
would  remain  ineffective,  which  was  precisely  what 
the  Government  of  Chile  desired  to  avoid.  So, 
therefore,  as  the  security  presented  by  the  Min- 
ister of  foreign  relations  would  be  limited  to  the 
offer  he  had  made,  to  pay  Chile  annually  a  million 
soles,  as  a  minimum,  on  account  of  the  said  in- 
demnity in  the  event  of  not  having  found  a  capi- 
talist that  would  lend  the  sum  total  of  it,  Chile, 
in  reality,  would  have  to  serve  as  a  money-lender, 
and  this  would  be  absolutely  unacceptable."  (Ap- 
pendix, pp.  96-97.  Y 

i  In  his  note  of  February  10,  1896,  the  Minister  of  Chile  added  this 
observation  regarding  the  salt  tax: 

i '  In  any  event,  there  would  always  remain  the  doubt  as  to  whether 
the  tax  on  the  consumption  of  salt  would  be  a  sufficient  guaranty  in 
the  eyes  of  a  capitalist,  and  I  note  that  this  doubt  is  also  enter- 
tained by  the  national  press  and  even  by  functionaries  of  such  lofty 


The  First  Question.  109 

It  was  then  decided  to  summarize  the  negotiations 
in  an  exchange  of  notes  to  which  reference  is  made  for 
an  exposition  of  the  views  of  the  two  Governments 
on  the  questions  of  the  date  of  payment  and  the  secur- 
ity for  payment.  (Appendix,  pp.  97, 127.)  With  these  ex- 
changes the  negotiations  ended  without  result,  and  the 
question  of  the  payment  of  the  ten  million  dollars  did 
not  come  up  again  in  the  negotiations  until  the  year 
1898. 

1898  and  Succeeding  Negotiations. 

The  negotiations  preceding  the  conclusion  of  the 
Billinghurst-Latorre  Protocol  include  a  reference  to 
the  proposal  by  Chile  for  the  mutual  waiver  of  the  pay- 
ment of  the  ten  millions  and  for  the  division  of  the 
provinces  between  the  two  countries.  (Appendix,  p. 
134.)  Peru  rejected  the  proposal,  although  in  1895 
she  had  proposed  to  Chile  the  mutual  renouncement 
of  the  payment.  (Appendix,  p.  84.) 

Subsequently,  the  subject  of  payment  was  discussed 
by  the  negotiators  and  an  agreement  was  reached  as 
set  forth  in  Articles  XV  and  XVI  of  the  Billinghurst- 
Latorre  Protocol,  printed  post,  page  156. 

The  possibility  of  obtaining  the  approval  of  the  plan 
of  payment  in  this  protocol  by  the  two  countries,  kept 
the  subject  out  of  the  negotiations  and  correspondence 
until  the  protocol  was  returned  to  the  Executive  by  the 
Chamber  of  Deputies  of  Chile  in  1901. 

After  that  date  the  payment  of  the  ten  millions  was 
only  referred  to  in  the  voluminous  correspondence  on 

category  as  his  excellency  sefior  Billinghurst,  the  first  vice-president 
of  the  republic,  who  declared  a  short  time  ago,  in  an  address  deliv- 
ered in  Tacna,  that:  'the  taxes  planned  by  the  executive,  in  the 
best  of  cases,  will  always  be  insufficient  to  constiute  a  fund  for  the 
interest  and  amortization  required  by  the  loan  of  a  million  pounds 
sterling,  designed  to  pay  for  the  liberation  of  Tacna  and  Arica. '  " 
{Appendix,  p.  119.) 


110  The  Case  of  Chile. 

other  phases  of  the  Tacna-Arica  Controversy,  inci- 
dentally as  a  matter  to  be  agreed  upon  in  the  special 
protocol  mentioned  in  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of 
Ancon.  (Appendix,  pp.  277,  373,  385,  452,  515.)  A  pro- 
posal by  Chile  in  1908  to  increase  the  amount  by  two 
or  three  million  pounds  sterling  was  promptly  declined 
by  Peru.  (Appendix,  pp.  379,  385.)  The  matter  is 
merely  mentioned  in  the  final  proposal  of  Chile  in  the 
correspondence  exchanged  in  1909-1910.  (Appendix,  p. 
457.)  After  that  period  the  payment  of  the  ten  millions 
plays  little  part  in  correspondence  or  negotiations,  and 
is  not  mentioned  directly  in  the  Protocol  and  Supple- 
mentary Agreement  of  1922. 

The  cause  for  the  abatement  of  interest  in  this  sub- 
ject in  the  correspondence  and  negotiations  after  the 
failure  of  the  Billinghurst-Latorre  Protocol  in  1901  is 
to  be  found  in  the  fact  that,  as  time  went  on,  the  politi- 
cal stability  and  financial  condition  of  Peru  improved 
so  that  the  matter  of  security  was  no  longer  a  sine  qua 
non  to  the  acceptance  of  her  formal  promise  to  carry 
out  her  public  obligations,  such  as  that  of  the  payment 
of  the  ten  million  dollars  stipulated  for  in  Article  III 
of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon.  This  is  the  explanation  why 
Peru  was  not  asked  after  1901  to  furnish  guaranties 
for  the  payment  of  this  sum. 

The  matter  of  the  payment  of  the  ten  millions  is, 
however,  as  explained  elsewhere,  necessarily  involved 
in  the  Washington  Arbitration,  for  it  is  not  only  one 
of  the  "questions  arising  out  of  the  unfulfilled  stipula- 
tions of  Article  m,*'  but  it  is  also  one  of  the  condi- 
tions laid  down  in  that  Article  as  precedent  to  the  re- 
cession of  Tacna  and  Arica  by  Chile  to  Peru,  in  the 
event  that  the  latter  succeeds  in  the  plebiscite. 

In  conclusion,  therefore,  it  may  be  said  that  Article 

111  provides  for  the  payment  of  ten  million  dollars  as 


The  Fiest  Question.  Ill 

a  condition  to  the  recession  of  Tacna-Arica  to  Peru; 
that  this  obligation  has  never  been  questioned  by  the 
parties  to  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  although  both  have  in 
the  course  of  negotiations  proposed  and  rejected  the 
renunciation  of  the  payment;  and  that  the  manner  of 
payment  is  one  of  the  questions  necessarily  to  be  de- 
termined by  the  Arbitrator  under  the  Washington  Pro- 
tocol and  Supplementary  Agreement  as  a  condition 
pertaining  to  the  plebiscite. 

4.  The  Present  Circumstances. 

In  the  first  question  submitted  to  the  Arbitrator  for 
decision  under  the  Washington  Protocol  and  Supple- 
mentary Agreement  of  July  20,  1922,  appears  the 
phrase,  "in  the  present  circumstances ' '  (en  las  circum- 
stancias  actuales). 

The  text  of  the  question  is  as  follows : 

"For  the  purpose  of  determining  the  manner  in 
which  the  stipulations  of  Article  III  of  the  Treaty 
of  Ancon  shall  be  fulfilled  there  shall  be  submitted 
to  arbitration  the  question  whether,  in  the  present 
circumstances,  the  plebiscite  shall  or  shall  not  be 
held." 

In  the  wording  of  this  question,  the  introductory 
phrase,  "For  the  purpose  of  determining  the  manner 
in  which  the  stipulations  of  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of 
Ancon  shall  be  fulfilled,' '  is  significant.  It  shows  that 
the  question  relates  to  the  manner  of  fulfilling  the 
treaty  stipulations  and  not  as  to  whether  the  stipula- 
tions can  or  cannot  be  fulfilled.  It  is  assumed  that  they 
are  to  be  fulfilled  in  some  manner,  and  that  the  Arbitra- 
tor in  determining  that  manner  shall  answer  the  specific 
question  submitted  to  him  which  is  above  quoted.    The 


112  The  Case  of  Chile. 

possibility  of  non-fulfillment  is  not  in  issue,  but  the 
manner  of  fulfillment  is. 

It  is  with  this  understanding  of  the  intent  of  the  par- 
ties that  the  phrase,  "  in  the  present  circumstances, ' ' 
should  be  considered  as  a  factor  in  reaching  a  decision 
upon  the  question  submitted.  The  limitation  imposed 
by  the  phrase  is  this,  whether  or  not  will  a  plebiscite 
"in  the  present  circumstances ' '  be  expedient,  will  it 
be  just  to  the  inhabitants  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  and  will 
it  be  in  conformity  with  the  intent  of  the  parties  when 
they  ratify  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  as  to  the  manner  of 
fulfilling  the  stipulations  of  Article  III. 

The  word  "circumstances"  has  a  broader  and' more 
comprehensive  meaning  that  the  word  "conditions." 
The  latter  word  is  subject  to  the  possible  narrow  in- 
terpretation that  it  refers  to  the  existing  political,  so- 
cial and  economic  state  of  the  disputed  territory  and 
its  inhabitants  and  to  the  influences  which  have  caused 
this  state.  While  these  facts  are  not  to  be  ignored,  they 
are  only  a  part  of  "the  present  circumstances"  which 
the  Arbitrator  is  to  consider  in  answering  the  first 
question.  There  are  other  ' '  circumstances, ' '  which  are 
even  more  important  and  more  compelling  than  the 
existing  state  of  Tacna  and  Arica  and  of  their  popula- 
tion, and  which  should,  iChile  submits,  be  given  special 
consideration  by  the  Arbitrator. 

As  to  the  existing  state  of  the  political,  social  and 
economic  life  of  the  people  of  Tacna  and  Arica  Chile 
respectfully  directs  the  attention  of  the  Arbitrator  to 
a  general  Memorandum  appended  to  this  Case  (Appen- 
dix, p.  733),  which  contains  geographic  data,  statistics 
as  to  resources,  population  and  commerce,  and  a  re- 
view of  the  development  and  progress  which  have 
taken  place  since  Chilean  administration  supplanted 
that  of  Peru  in  these  provinces.    In  the  construction 


The  Fibst  Question.  113 

of  public  works  and  in  the  measures  taken  to  promote 
education  and  sanitary  conditions,  in  the  encourage- 
ment given  to  commerce  and  industry  by  improving 
means  of  transportation  and  in  opening  markets  for 
the  products  of  the  territory,  and  in  the  constant  en- 
deavor in  behalf  of  the  general  welfare  of  the  inhabi- 
tants of  Tacna  and  Arica,  Chile  has  spared  neither 
effort  nor  money.  The  general  Memorandum,  here- 
with presented,  is  a  record  of  achievement,  inspired  by 
a  high  sense  of  the  obligation  of  a  government  to  the 
people  under  its  authority,  to  which  Chile  can  and  does 
point  with  satisfaction  and  pride. 

The  people  living  under  such  conditions  ought  not 
to  be  deprived  of  the  opportunity  to  declare  by  popular 
vote  whether  or  not  they  desire  to  continue  under  the 
present  sovereignty.  Their  "consent"  should  be 
sought  through  the  means  of  a  plebiscite  such  as  is  con- 
templated by  the  provisions  of  Article  III  of  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon.  It  would,  it  is  submitted,  be  an  in- 
justice to  deny  them  a  right  which  was  recognized  by 
both  Chile  and  Peru  in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  and  which 
has  been  repeatedly  confirmed  in  the  negotiations  be- 
tween the  two  countries. 

But  "the  present  circumstances,"  other  than  the 
conditions  of  development,  progress  and  prosperity, 
which  now  prevail  in  Tacna  and  Arica,  "circum- 
stances," which  the  Arbitrator  ought,  in  the  opinion 
of  Chile,  to  consider  in  deciding  the  First  Question,  in- 
clude the  international  situation  which  now  exists. 

The  Tacna-Arica  Controversy  has  continued  for  a 
third  of  a  century  and  has  been  a  barrier  to  the 
restoration  of  amity  between  Chile  and  Peru.  It  has 
perpetuated  animosity  and  distrust  between  the  peo- 
ples of  the  two  nations  and  has  caused  years  of  diplo- 
matic   non-intercourse    between    their    Governments 


114  The  Case  of  Chile. 

which  has  resulted  in  a  state  of  isolation  between  two 
neighboring  countries,  where  there  should  prevail 
friendship  and  confidence. 

Efforts  have  been  made  by  both  Governments  to 
settle  the  controversy.  The  repeated  attempts  to  ne- 
gotiate the  special  protocol  provided  for  in  Article  III 
of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  bear  witness  to  the  sincerity 
of  those  efforts.  The  failure  to  find  acceptable  terms 
for  holding  the  contemplated  plebiscite  during  these 
years  of  negotiation  makes  the  renewal  of  negotiations 
a  course  to  be  avoided  if  any  other  way  can  be  found 
to  end  for  all  time  this  unfortunate  dispute.  As  a  mat- 
ter of  expediency,  even  if  no  other  reason  existed,  the 
Arbitrator  should  decide  the  First  Question  in  the 
affirmative  and  by  his  decision  of  that  question  and  of 
the  Second  Question  bring  to  an  end  in  the  near  future 
a  state  of  affairs  which  ought  not  to  exist  since  it  keeps 
Chile  and  Peru  apart  and  arouses  a  measure  of  parti- 
sanship among  other  South  American  Republics  which 
may  in  time  endanger  the  tranquillity  of  the  continent 
and  prevent  Pan-American  solidarity. 

Another  "circumstance"  is  that  the  Washington 
Protocol  and  Supplementary  Agreement  were  negoti- 
ated and  signed.  The  self-evident  intention  of  the 
parties  was  to  find  a  means  of  ending  the  Tacna-Arica 
Controversy  since  the  negotiation  of  a  special  protocol 
seemed  hopeless  in  view  of  past  experiences.  The 
arbitration  agreed  upon  was  the  means  which  the 
parties  mutually  adopted.  It  seemed  expedient 
and  practical  to  submit  the  solution  of  the  dif- 
ficulties to  an  impartial  arbitrator  and  to  leave  to 
him  the  drafting  of  conditions  which  the  parties  had 
been  unable  to  draft  themselves  because  they  failed 
to  agree.  This  ' i  circumstance ' '  like  the  previous  one 
is  to  be  considered  from  the  standpoint  of  expediency, 


The  Fiest  Question.  115 

and  from  this  standpoint  Chile  contends  that  the  politic 
and  proper  answer  to  the  First  Question  is  that  a  plebi- 
scite should  be  held  in  that  such  a  decision  will  conform 
to  the  intent  of  the  parties  as  shown  by  the  execution 
and  ratification  of  the  Washington  Protocol  and  satisfy 
not  only  the  frequently  expressed  desire  of  both  Chile 
and  Peru  but  also  the  hope  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States,  whose  solicitude  in  restoring  harmony 
between  the  disputant  nations  was  the  motive  which 
inspired  its  suggestion  of  the  conference  at  Washing- 
ton which  resulted  in  the  negotiation  of  the  Protocol 
and  Supplementary  Agreement  of  July  20,  1922,  and 
in  the  present  arbitration. 

The  phrase,  " in  the  present  circumstances,"  thus 
interpreted,  confers  upon  the  Arbitrator  a  wide  lati- 
tude in  reviewing  the  facts,  which  surround  the  Tacna- 
Arica  Controversy,  and  impose  upon  him,  in  the 
opinion  of  Chile,  the  obligation  to  take  into  account  the 
expedient  way  as  well  as  the  just  way  ' '  of  determining 
the  manner  in  which  the  stipulations  shall  be  fulfilled, ' ' 
which  unfulfilled  stipulations  are  declared  in  Article  I 
of  the  Washington  Protocol  to  be  "the  only  difficulties 
arising  out  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace,  regarding  which 
the  two  countries  have  not  been  able  to  reach  an  agree- 
ment. ' ' 

Chile  would  consider  it  to  be  a  misfortune  for  her- 
self, for  Peru  and  for  Pan-American  concord,  if  the 
Washington  Conference  was  without  practical  results 
which  she  considers  that  it  would  be  if  the  Arbitrator 
failed  to  take  a  broad  view  of  the  purpose  of  the  con- 
ference and  of  the  mutual  intent  of  the  parties  when 
they  signed  and  ratified  the  Washington  Protocol,  a 
view,  which  he  is  warranted  in  taking  by  the  phrase, 
"in  the  present  circumstances." 


116  The  Case  of  Chile. 

PART  III. 

The  Second  Question: 

Conditions  foe  Holding  a  Plebiscite. 

The  Second  Question  submitted  to  the  Arbitrator  is 
conditional  upon  his  answering  the  First  Question  in 
the  affirmative.  The  section  or  clause  of  the  Supple- 
mentary Agreement  to  the  Washington  Protocol  of 
July  20,  1922,  reads  as  follows : 

"Second.  In  case  that  it  is  decided  that  the 
plebiscite  shall  be  held,  the  arbitrator  is  em- 
powered to  determine  the  conditions  under  which 
it  shall  be  held. 

Assuming  that,  in  answering  the  First  Question  the 
Arbitrator  decides  that,  in  the  present  circumstances, 
a  plebiscite  shall  be  held  in  the  territory  embracing 
Tacna  and  Arica,  the  question  as  to  the  conditions 
for  holding  such  plebiscite  is  presented.  While  the 
Arbitrator  has  full  power  to  determine  these  condi- 
tions in  accordance  with  his  high  sense  of  justice  and 
Kis  desire  to  be  fair  to  both  parties,  it  is  deemed 
proper  to  aid  him,  in  so  far  as  possible,  in  answering 
this  question  as  to  the  plebiscitary  conditions  by  ad- 
verting to  the  subjects  which,  in  the  views  of  Chile, 
should  be  incorporated  in  or  excluded  from  the  deci- 
sion of  the  Arbitrator  as  to  the  conditions  which  he  is 
empowered  to  formulate. 

The  subjects  which  should,  in  the  opinion  of  Chile, 
be  considered  by  the  Arbitrator  in  determining  the 
conditions  for  carrying  out  the  plebiscite,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  terms  of  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of 
Ancon  and  the  intent  of  the  signatory  powers,  may 
be  conveniently  treated  under  six  heads,  namely:     1. 


The  Second  Question.  117 

Secrecy  of  the  ballot;  2.  Qualifications  of  voters;  3. 
Methods  of  registering  voters :  4.  Method  of  receiving 
the  votes;  5.  Time  for  holding  the  plebiscite;  and,  6. 
Payment  of  the  ten  millions. 

Under  these  six  heads  the  conditions  to  be  deter- 
mined by  the  Arbitrator  will  be  discussed. 

1.  Secrecy  of  the  Ballot. 

The  first  condition  to  be  determined  is  whether  the 
plebiscitary  vote  is  to  be  open  or  secret.  It  seems 
as  if  this  condition  would  arouse  little  controversy 
although  in  1909  Peru  favored  "a  public  vote"  in 
place  of  the  "secret  ballot' '  proposed  by  Chile.  In 
the  exercise  of  the  franchise  under  democratic  institu- 
tions the  secrecy  of  the  ballot  is  universally  recognized 
at  the  present  time  as  the  only  certain  means  of  se- 
curing a  free  and  frank  expression  of  the  popular  will. 
While  it  is  manifest  that,  in  the  present  circumstances, 
an  open  and  public  casting  of  the  votes  in  the  plebi- 
scite would  in  all  probability  be  to  the  advantage  of 
the  nation  now  in  possession  of  the  dominion  and  sov- 
ereignty of  the  territory  involved,  Chile  seeks  no  such 
advantage.  She  desires  that  the  plebiscite  shall  give 
full  and  true  expression  to  the  collective  will  of  the 
inhabitants  of  Tacna  and  Arica.  She,  therefore,  de- 
clares herself  in  favor  of  a  secret  ballot,  and  earnestly 
urges  the  Arbitrator  to  make  secrecy  in  the  casting 
of  the  plebiscitary  vote  one  of  the  principal  conditions 
which  he  is  called  upon  to  determine. 

2.  Qualifications  of  Voters. 

The  principles,  which  underlie  a  plebiscite  dealing 
with  the  determination  of  the  nationality  of  a  territory 
and  with  the  Government  of  its  inhabitants,  is,  first, 
that  of  the  well-known  doctrine  that  all  Government 


118  The  Case  of  Chile. 

should  derive  its  just  powers  from  "the  consent  of 
the  governed,"  and,  second,  that  this  consent  should 
be  given  under  the  rule  of  majorities  which  is  funda- 
mental to  the  functioning  of  democratic  institutions 
and  \o  any  expression  of  the  collective  will  of  the  in- 
dividuals composing  a  body  politic. 

A  plebiscite,  which  is  intended  to  decide  what  state 
or  person  is  to  possess  the  rights  of  sovereignty  over 
certain  territory,  is  held  for  the  purpose  of  determin- 
ing the  will  of  the  persons  whose  public  and  personal 
rights  are  directly  affected  by  the  exercise  of  sov- 
ereign authority.  The  will  of  the  inhabitants  of  a 
territory,  over  which  sovereignty  is  to  extend,  and 
who  are  the  persons,  whose  rights  are  directly  affected, 
is  expressed  by  the  majority  of  such  inhabitants  since 
unanimity  among  thousands  of  individuals  is  prac- 
tically impossible.  The  popular  will,  thus  expressed, 
as  to  the  choice  of  the  possessor  of  the  sovereignty, 
under  which  they  live,  becomes  "the  consent  of  the 
governed. ' ' 

The  right  of  choice  does  not  lie  with  those  who  are 
unaffected  in  their  individual  rights  by  the  determina- 
tion of  the  sovereignty.  It  does  not  lie  with  former 
inhabitants  of  the  territory  which  will  be  subject  to 
the  Government  set  up  by  the  possessor  of  the  sov- 
ereignty, if  they  no  longer  reside  in  the  territory.  It 
does  not  lie  solely  with  persons  owing  allegiance  to 
a  particular  nation.  It  lies  with  those,  who  may  be 
properly  classed  as  "the  governed,"  and  "the  gov- 
erned' '  are  those  individuals  who  reside  within  the 
territory  at  the  time  when  plebiscitary  action  is  taken 
to  decide  as  to  the  possession  of  the  sovereignty  and 
when  the  popular  will  is  made  known  by  a  majority 
vote  of  such  individuals. 

If  any  other  rule  were  established  as  to  the  right  to 


The  Second  Question.  119 

participate  in  a  plebiscite,  the  consequence  would  be 
that  the  sovereignty  might  pass  to  a  nation  or  to  a 
person  opposed  by  the  greater  number  of  the  inhabi- 
tants thus  denying  the  principle  of  "consent  of  the 
governed,,  and  creating  a  situation  which  would  re- 
sult in  continued  international  irritation  and  might 
possibly  be  the  cause  of  future  war. 

While  the  doctrine  of  "consent  of  the  governed"  is 
not  usually  applied  to  the  transfer  of  territorial  pos- 
sessions as  the  result  of  a  war,  and,  while  the  wisdom 
of  such  application  has  been  questioned,  the  agree- 
ment by  the  belligerents  to  hold  a  plebiscite  in  the 
territory  in  question  is  a  mutual  acceptance  of  the 
doctrine  that  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  territory  is  con- 
fided the  choice  of  the  Government  under  whose  au- 
thority they  desire  to  live.  It  makes  no  difference, 
therefore,  whether  or  not  it  was  wise  to  invoke  the 
doctrine  of  "consent  of  the  governed"  in  the  case  of 
Tacna  and  Arica,  the  fact  is  that  it  was  invoked  and 
the  principle  was  accepted  when  Chile  and  Peru  agreed 
that  "a  plebiscitum  will  decide  by  popular  vote"  the 
possession  of  the  permanent  sovereignty  over  these 
provinces. 

It  was  manifestly  the  intention  of  the  parties  to  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon  to  grant  to  "the  governed"  within 
that  territory  the  power  to  choose  freely  who  should  be 
their  governors  and  to  commit  to  those  chosen  gover- 
nors the  power  to  exercise  dominion  and  sovereignty 
over  them  and  over  the  territory  inhabited  by  them. 
That  being  the  intention  of  the  parties,  a  plebiscite, 
if  one  is  held  pursuant  to  the  terms  of  Article  III, 
must  proceed  in  accord  with  the  doctrine  of  ' '  consent 
of  the  governed ' '  and  ought  not  to  be  carried  out  under 
conditions  which  are  arbitrarily  imposed  if  such  con- 
ditions are  clearly  at  variance  with  that  doctrine. 


120  The  Case  of  Chile. 

As  was  said  by  the  Chilean  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs  in  addressing  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  on 
June  13,  1922 : 

"For  a  long  time  back  the  disposition  of  terri- 
tory has  ceased  to  be  made  by  the  fanciful  action 
of  the  Governments ;  the  will  of  the  inhabitants  of 
Tacna  and  Arica  must  be  sought  in  order  to  decide 
the  definite  nationality  which  belongs  to  them." 
(Appendix,  p.  603.) 

The  individuals  who  are  directly  affected  by  the 
result  of  a  plebiscite  similar  in  nature  to  the  one  pro- 
vided for  under  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  are  those  ac- 
tually living  within  the  territory,  the  sovereign  pos- 
session of  which  is  to  be  determined.  It  is  their  private 
rights  and  public  obligations  which  are  at  stake,  rights 
and  obligations  dependent  upon  the  sovereignty  under 
which  they  live.  It  is  not  a  question  of  their  past  or 
present  nationality  but  of  their  future  relations  to  a 
permanent  sovereign  which  is  to  be  settled  by  the 
plebiscite.  To  all  intents  and  purposes  the  individuals, 
in  the  exercise  of  their  right  to  vote  in  the  plebiscite 
have  an  undetermined  relationship  to  the  sovereign 
power  which  will  become  permanently  fixed  and  de- 
termined by  the  expression  of  the  popular  will  through 
the  medium  of  the  plebiscite. 

The  primary  qualification,  under  the  application  of 
the  doctrine  of  "consent  of  the  governed/'  is  that 
a  person  to  participate  in  the  plebiscite  and  to  share 
in  the  expression  of  the  popular  will,  should  be  an 
actual  resident  within  the  territory  comprising  the 
Chilean  departments  of  Tacna  and  Arica.  As  it  may 
be  urged  with  a  measure  of  reason  that  non-resident 
persons  holding  title  to  lands  within  the  territory 
should  be  permitted  to  vote  in  the  plebiscite,  Chile 


The  Second  Question.  121 

does  not  raise  serious  objection  to  their  inclusion 
among  those  entitled  to  vote,  since  their  property 
rights  would  be  directly  affected  by  the  plebiscitary 
decision. 

In  addition  to  non-resident  land-owners,  there  would 
be  also  those  individuals,  regardless  of  their  present 
nationality,  who  are  at  the  time  of  the  plebiscite  re- 
sidents of  Tacna  and  Arica  and  whose  residence  is 
bona  fide  and  not  temporarily  assumed  for  the  pur- 
pose of  taking  part  in  the  plebiscite  and  defeating  the 
popular  will  of  the  actual  residents  of  the  territory. 

As  to  proof  of  actual  and  bona  fide  residence  pro- 
vision should  be  made  in  the  conditions  governing  the 
plebiscite  for  a  definite  period,  not  to  exceed  one 
year,  of  continual  residence  immediately  prior  to  the 
plebiscite  and  also  provision  for  registration  with  a 
proper  declaration  under  oath  as  to  residence,  such 
registration  to  take  place  a  sufficient  time  before  the 
plebiscitary  vote  is  received  to  permit  an  investigation 
as  to  the  truth  of  the  declaration  in  order  that  the 
name  of  any  person  making  a  false  declaration  may 
be  expunged  from  the  register  of  those  permitted  to 
vote  at  the  plebiscite.  It  is  only  by  provisions  of 
this  character  that  the  will  of  the  real  residents  of 
Tacna  and  Arica  can  be  safeguarded  from  the  partici- 
pation in  the  plebiscite  of  persons  who,  though  inspired 
by  patriotic  motives,  may  descend  to  fraudulent  prac- 
tices to  attain  their  ends.  It  is  the  only  way  to  obtain 
a  true  " consent  of  the  governed"  to  the  final  deter- 
mination of  the  sovereignty  over  Tacna  and  Arica. 

While  actual  residence  within  the  territory  covered 
by  the  plebiscite  or  possibly  land-ownership  is,  it  is 
submitted,  a  first  and  essential  qualification  for  a  voter, 
there  are  certain  other  qualifications  which  are  neces- 
sary and  should  receive  consideration  by  the  Arbitra- 


122  The  Case  of  Chile. 

tor  in  determining  the  conditions  for  holding  the  plebi- 
scite. 

The  decision  of  the  national  character  of  territory 
by  popular  vote,  like  the  election  of  public  officials  by 
popular  vote  or  the  determination  of  any  public  ques- 
tion by  a  popular  referendum,  in  which  the  majority 
of  the  people  control  by  exercising  the  electoral  fran- 
chise, compels  each  individual  depositing  a  ballot  to 
make  a  choice.  It  is  evident  that  in  order  to  make  a 
choice  an  individual  ought  to  possess  the  ability  to 
choose,  which  must  be  an  intelligent  act  and,  therefore, 
based  on  an  intellectual  process.  In  the  exercise  of 
public  rights  under  a  democratic  system  of  Govern- 
ment certain  qualifications  are  required  of  individuals 
who  exercise  such  rights,  it  being  presumed  that  a 
person  possessing  the  qualifications  required  is  capable 
of  making  an  intelligent. choice.  Unless  a  person  has 
the  intellectual  qualities  to  choose  intelligently  he  is 
held  to  be  unfit  to  exercise  the  franchise.  Consent  as 
used  in  the  phrase  "consent  of  the  governed"  neces- 
sitates personal  choice  and  should  be  subject  to  the 
same  limitations. 

This  fundamental  necessity  of  an  intelligent  elec- 
torate to  the  success  of  a  popular  government,  whether 
the  state  is  a  republic  or  a  liberal  monarchy,  is  rec- 
ognized in  the  organic  or  statutory  laws  of  the  coun- 
try by  requiring  voters  to  possess  qualifications  that 
have  to  do  with  age,  intellectual  attainments,  and  other 
personal  qualities  which  vary  in  different  nations  and 
under  different  conditions  of  society.  These  election 
laws  are  intended  to  restrict  the  exercise  of  public 
rights  to  persons  entitled  by  reason  of  residence  and 
nationality  and  who  possess  sufficient  intelligence  to 
exercise  them,  that  is,  to  residents  mentally  equipped 
to  make  a  rational  choice. 


The  Second  Question.  123 

In  determining  npon  the  conditions  for  holding  a 
plebiscite  in  Tacna  and  Arica,  Chile  contends  that  the 
same  intellectual  qualification  should  be  applied  to 
residents  of  the  territory  in  order  to  entitle  them  to 
participate  in  the  proceeding  since  the  choice  of  a  sov- 
ereign should  be  made  intelligently  and  not  ignorantly. 
To  decide  upon  the  qualifications  necessary  to  secure 
this  result  the  Arbitrator  may,  therefore,  properly  take 
into  consideration  the  election  laws  now  in  force  in 
Chile  and  Peru,  which  indicate  the  judgments  of  the 
respective  Republics  expressed  by  their  national  legis- 
latures as  to  the  qualifications  which  ought  to  be  re- 
quired of  a  person  who  seeks  to  exercise  the  public 
rights  of  a  citizen. 

The  Chilean  Electoral  Law  of  November  12,  1874, 
provided  as  to  the  qualification  of  voters  the  following : 

CHAPTER  I. 

"Relative  to  the  Registration  of  the  Voters. 

"Article  I.  In  the  register  of  voters  that  shall 
be  kept  in  conformity  with  the  stipulations  of  this 
law,  there  shall  be  inscribed  all  Chileans,  born 
and  naturalized,  who  desire  to  exercise  the  right 
of  suffrage  and  who  are  possessed  of  the  following 
qualifiactions : 

"1.  Twenty-five  years  of  age,  if  single,  and 
twenty-one  if  married. 

"2.  To  be  able  to  read  and  write. 

"3.  To  own  real  estate  or  an  invested  capital  of 
the  value  required  by  the  law,  or  to  exercise  a 
trade,  an  industry  or  profession,  or  to  hold  a  post, 
or  to  enjoy  an  income  or  usufruct,  the  value  of 
each  of  these  being  in  proportion  to  the  value  of 
the  real  estate  or  the  invested  capital  just  re- 
ferred to  above. 

"The  value  of  the  real  estate  or  the  invested 
capital  shall  be  determined  for  each  province  by 


124  The  Case  of  Chile. 

the  law  which  is  to  be  passed  in  conformity  with 
the  prescriptions  of  Article  VIII  of  the  Consti- 
tution. 

(Law  of  November  3,  1874.)" 

This  law  was  superseded  on  February  21,  1914,  by 
a  new  Electoral  Law,  the  one  now  in  force  in  Chile. 
The  provisions  of  the  present  law  as  to  the  qualifica- 
tions entitling  a  person  to  registration  as  a  voter  are 
included  in  Article  23  of  Section  III,  which  reads: 

"Article  23.  The  registration  committee  shall 
inscribe  in  the  voters  register,  of  the  respective 
sub-delegation,  the  male  Chilean  citizens  who  re- 
quest it  and  who  possess  the  following  qualifi- 
cations : 

"1.  Twenty-one  years  of  age. 
"2.  Able  to  read  and  write;  and 
"3.  Residing  in  the  respective  sub-delegation. ' ' 

The  Peruvian  Electoral  Law  of  April  4,  1861,  has 
the  following  provisions  as  to  the  qualifications  of 
voters : 

"Title  I.    The  Right  to  Vote. 

"Article  1.  Married  citizens,  or  those  over 
twenty-one  years  of  age,  who  can  read  and  write, 
or  who  are  heads  of  shops,  or  who  own  some  real 
property,  or  who  are  tax-payers,  and  whose  names 
are  found  upon  the  civic  register,  shall  have  the 
right  to  vote." 

In  1919,  after  the  revolution  which  resulted  in  the 
assumption  of  the  presidential  office  by  Senor  Augusto 
Leguia,  the  Provisional  Government  of  Peru  deter- 
mined to  ascertain  the  popular  will  concerning  certain 
constitutional  amendments  through  the  medium  of  a 
plebiscite.  In  order  to  carry  out  this  purpose  Pro- 
visional President  Leguia  issued,  on  July  14,  1919,  a 


The  Second  Question.  125 

decree  which  possessed  the  force  of  enacted  law.    In 
this  decree  the  following  appears: 

' '  Considering  that  a  plebiscite  and  a  call  to  gen- 
eral elections  has  been  decided  upon,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  that  effect  to  find,  in  the  present  circums- 
tances, a  simple  and  rapid  means  of  procedure  that 
will,  at  the  same  time,  guarantee  the  true  expres- 
sion of  the  popular  will.  Therefore,  and  with  the 
unanimous  approval  of  the  Council  of  Ministers,  I 
decree : 

"Article  1.  All  Peruvians  over  twenty-one 
years  of  age,  or  married,  who  can  read  and  write, 
shall  vote  in  the  elections  and  in  the  plebiscite. 
Army  and  navy  officers  also  shall  vote  in  the  plebi- 
scite. All  other  prohibitions  of  the  electoral  law 
shall  remain  in  effect." 

Comparison  of  the  provisions  in  the  present  Chilean 
and  Peruvian  Electoral  Laws,  which  have  to  do  with 
the  qualifications  of  persons  entitled  to  registration 
and  to  cast  a  ballot  shows  that  the  following  qualifi- 
cations are  common  to  both  laws. 

1.  Citizens,  who  are 

2.  21  years  of  age 

3.  Able  to  read  and  write. 

It  should  be  noted  that  in  the  Chilean  law  "male 
Chilean  citizens' '  are  the  persons  entitled  to  registra- 
tion. While  the  Peruvian  law  does  not  mention  the 
sex  of  voters,  it  is  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  that 
women's  suffrage  does  not  exist  in  that  Republic,  the 
franchise  being  exercised  solely  by  citizens  of  the  male 
sex. 

It  may,  therefore,  be  properly  assumed  that,  so  far 
as  the  laws  and  practice  of  the  two  countries  are  con- 
cerned, a  qualification  common  to  both  is — 

4.  Persons  of  the  male  sex. 


126  The  Case  of  Chile. 

In  the  Chilean  Electoral  Law  of  1914,  above  quoted, 
residence  within  a  sub-delegation  is  made  necessary 
"qualification  for  the  exercise  of  the  franchise. 

The  Peruvian  Electoral  Law  makes  no  direct  pro- 
vision as  to  a  residential  qualification  for  voters.  It 
however,  does  so  indirectly  by  a  limiting  phrase  in 
reference  to  voters  which  reads  ''whose  names  are 
found  upon  the  civic  register.' '  The  civic  register 
which  is  referred  to  was  established  by  the  Census  and 
Civic  Register  Law  of  May  22,  1861.  The  pertinent 
provision  of  that  law  reads : 

"Article  1.  The  general  population  register 
is  the  book  upon  which  are  inscribed  the  names 
of  all  the  inhabitants  of  each  one  of  the  provinces 
into  which  the  Republic  is  divided,  with  the  re- 
spective place  of  birth,  sex,  age,  condition,  profes- 
sion or  trade,  and  the  qualifications  specified  in 
Article  38  of  the  Constitution. ' ' 

Thus  in  the  Chilean  Electoral  Law  residence  within 
a  sub-delegation  is  laid  down  as  a  necessary  requisite 
to  the  exercise  of  the  franchise,  while  in  the  Peruvian 
Electoral  Law  residence  within  a  province  of  the  Re- 
public is  required. 

A  qualification  for  voters,  common  to  the  laws  of 
both  countries  may  be  added  to  those  already  set 
forth,  namely: 

5.  Residence  within  a  defined  territory.- 

In  the  following  five  particulars,  therefore,  the  two 
countries  by  their  independent  legislation  and  by  prac- 
tice are  in  agreement  as  to  the  proper  qualifications 
of  voters : 

1.  Citizenship 

2.  Age  of  21  years 

3.  Ability  to  read  and  write 

4.  Persons  of  the  male  sex 

5.  Residence  within  a  defined  territory. 


The  Second  Question.  127 

It  should  be  added  that  by  Peruvian  law  the  quali- 
fication as  to  age  is  modified  by  including  married 
persons,  irrespective  of  age,  in  the  list  of  voters  pro- 
vided that  they  possess  the  other  qualifications  re- 
quired by  law.  This  provision  as  to  marriage  is,  how- 
ever, not  found  in  the  laws  of  Chile  except  in  Clause 
1  of  Article  I  of  Chapter  I  of  the  Electoral  law  of 
1874,  which  reads: 

•*1,  Twenty-five   years   of  age,   if   single,   and 
twenty-one  if  married." 

This  law  was  superseded  by  the  Electoral  Law  of 
1914,  which  makes  no  exception  as  to  married  men 
but  declares  that  all  "male  Chilean  citizens"  who  are 
21  years  of  age  may  be  inscribed  in  the  "voters  re- 
gister" provided  that  they  have  the  necessary  intel- 
lectual and  residential  qualifications. 

The  distinction  between  married  and  unmarried  men 
thus  disappears  from  the  Chilean  Law,  but  even  un- 
der the  Law  of  1874  no  man  under  21  years  of  age 
was  entitled  to  the  franchise,  so  that  no  exception 
was  made  in  favor  of  married  men  who  had  not  at- 
tained the  age  of  21  years.  It  is,  therefore,  submit- 
ted that  no  qualification  as  to  marriage  should  be  con- 
sidered. 

In  formulating  the  conditions  for  holding  the  plebi- 
scite in  compliance  with  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of 
Ancon,  the  foregoing  five  qualifications  for  voters, 
which  are  common  to  the  legislation  of  both  Chile 
and  Peru,  should  be  considered  as  indicative  of  their 
mutual  agreement  as  to  the  persons  entitled  to  parti- 
cipate in  that  proceeding. 

There  is  also  another  branch  of  this  subject,  which 
ought  to  be  considered  by  the  Arbitrator  in  determin- 
ing the  qualifications  of  voters  in  the  plebiscite,  and 


128  The  Case  of  Chile. 

that  is  the  conditions  which  disqualify  a  person  from 
casting  a  ballot  even  though  he  possesses  the  general 
qualifications  laid  down  by  the  Arbitrator.  A  brief 
statement  of  the  provisions  relative  to  the  disquali- 
fication of  voters  as  set  forth  in  the  respective  Elec- 
toral Laws  of  Chile  and  Peru  now  in  force  will  be  of 
aid  to  the  Arbitrator  in  deciding  upon  the  conditions 
for  holding  the  plebiscite. 

The  portion  of  the  Chilean  Law  of  1914  dealing 
with  this  subject  is  as  follows: 


The  Second  Question.  129 

CHAPTEK  III. 

"  Article  24.  There  shall  not  be  registered,  even 
though  possessing  the  requisites  enumerated  in 
Article  23,  those  who  have  lost  their  citizenship 
because  of. 

"I.  Corporal  or  degrading  penalty. 

44  2.  Fraudulent  bankruptcy. 

"3.  Accepted  posts,  performed  services  or  pen- 
sions received  from  a  foreign  Government  with- 
out special  permit  from  Congress;  and    • 

"4.  Naturalization  by  a  foreign  country. 

"  Those  who  have  lost  their  citizenship  and  have 
been  rehabilitated  by  the  Senate  may,  neverthe- 
less, be  registered. 

"Nor  shall  there  be  registered  those  whose  cit- 
izenship has  been  suspended  by  reason  of 

"1.  Physical  or  moral  incapacity,  hindering 
their  free  and  conscious  behavior. 

"2.  Domestic  service. 

"3.  Trial  for  crime  and  misdemeanor,  subject 
to  corporal  or  degrading  penalty. 

"There  shall  not  be  registered,  furthermore, 

"1.  The  individuals  serving  on  the  city  and 
rural  police  forces,  or  performing  any  duties 
therefor. 

"2.  The  conscripts  and  soldiers  of  the  stand- 
ing army  and  the  navy;  and 

"3.  The  regular  clergy.' ' 

The  Peruvian  Law  of  1861,  which  disqualifies  cer- 
tain persons  from  exercising  the  franchise,  reads: 

"Article  2.  The  following  cannot  vote: 

"1.  Those  who  have  lost  the  right  of  citizen- 
ship or  whose  exercise  of  such  right  is  suspended, 
in  accordance  with  articles  40  and  41  of  the  Con- 
stitution. 

"2.  Ministers  of  state,  prefects,  sub-prefects, 
governors,  and  police  agents. 

"3.  Officers  of  the  national  army  or  navy  and 
of  the  constabulary. 


130  The  Case  of  Chile. 

"4.  The  enlisted  men  of  the  constabulary  or  of 
the  army  and  the  members  of  the  crews  of  the 
ships  of  the  national  navy. 

"5.  Beggars  and  domestic  servants. 

"Article  3.  Officers  of  the  army  and  of  the 
navy,  who  are  not  exercising  any  command,  may 
vote  in  the  parish  in  which  they  are  residing." 

It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  in  President  Le- 
guia's  decree  of  1919  for  the  holding  of  a  plebiscite 
the  following  occurs: 

"Army  and  navy  officers  also  shall  vote  in  the 
plebiscite.  All  other  prohibitions  of  the  electoral 
law  shall  remain  in  effect." 

A  comparison  of  the  provisions  of  the  laws  of  the 
two  countries  shows  that  the  grounds  for  disqualifi- 
cation of  voters  are  stated  in  much  more  detail  in  the 
Chilean  Law  of  1914  than  in  the  Peruvian  Law  of 
1861  and  the  Presidential  Decree  of  1919.  Neverthe- 
less there  are  certain  conditions  working  disqualifi- 
cation which  are  common  to  the  laws  of  both  countries. 
Avoiding  the  details  appearing  in  the  Chilean  Law  of 
1914,  the  following  conditions,  which  disqualify  a  per- 
son from  the  franchise,  are  adopted  by  both  countries 
in  their  legislation: 

1.  Loss  of  the  right  of  citizenship 

2.  Individuals  serving  in  the  constabulary 

3.  Enlisted  men  in  the  army  and  navy. 

4.  Domestic  servants. 

The  Chilean  Law  also  disqualifies  persons  for  "phys- 
ical or  moral  incapacity,  hindering  their  free  and  con- 
scious behavior' '  and  also  those  held  for  trial  for  a 
crime  or  misdemeanor. 


The  Second  Question.  131 

The  Peruvian  Law  of  1861,  which  makes  no  re- 
ference to  physical  or  moral  incapacity  as  a  gronnd 
for  disqualification,  excludes  from  the  franchise  min- 
isters of  state,  prefects,  sub-prefects,  governors,  offi- 
cers of  the  national  army  and  navy  in  active  service, 
and  the  enlisted  men  in  the  army  and  members  of  the 
crews  of  the  navy.  The  disqualification  of  army  and 
navy  officers  was,  however,  rescinded  by  the  Presiden- 
tial Decree  of  1919. 

While  the  Peruvian  disqualification  of  certain  per- 
sons engaged  in  the  public  service  is  clearly  based 
upon  considerations  applicable  to  the  domestic  poli- 
tical situation  existing  in  the  Kepublic  of  Peru  and, 
therefore,  without  analogy  to  the  holding  of  a  plebi- 
scite in  Tacna  and  Arica,  the  Chilean  disqualification 
of  persons  physically  or  morally  incapacitated  and 
persons  held  for  a  criminal  trial  are  limitations,  which 
are  rational  and  right,  and  which  it  is  submitted, 
should  be  incorporated  in  the  conditions  for  holding 
the  plebiscite,  when  they  are  drafted  by  the  Arbitrator. 

Chile,  therefore,  contends  that  the  following  con- 
dition or  state  of  an  individual  should  disqualify  him 
from  participating  in  the  plebiscite: 

1.  Loss  of  the  rights  of  citizenship 

2.  Service  in  the  constabulary 

3.  Enlisted  men  in  the  army  and  navy 

4.  Domestic  service 

5.  Physical  or  moral  incapacity 

6.  Arrest  for  a  criminal  offense. 

The  several  negotiations  between  Chile  and  Peru, 
in  the  vain  endeavor  to  agree  upon  the  terms  of  the 
special  protocol  providing  for  the  holding  of  the  plebi- 
scite and  the  payment  of  the  ten  millions,  furnish  to 
a  certain  extent  the  views  of  the  two  Governments  as 


132  The  Case  of  Chile. 

to  the  qualifications  which  they  considered  at  the 
time  necessary  for  persons  to  entitle  them  to  vote 
in  the  plebiscite.  They  are  worthy  of  consideration 
by  the  Arbitrator  in  connection  with  the  election  laws 
of  the  two  countries. 

In  the  memorandum  of  the  Minister  of  Peru  at  San- 
tiago, which  was  delivered  to  the  Chilean  Govern- 
ment during  the  progress  of  the  negotiations  in  1894, 
it  was  provided  in  Article  IV  of  the  memorandum: 

"IV.  Only  those  who  fulfill  the  following  con- 
ditions will  be  accepted  for  inscription  in  the  reg- 
isters as  voters: 

"1.  Peruvians  [males],  married  or  more  than 
twenty-one  years  of  age,  who  reside  at  present  in 
the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

u2.  Chileans  [males],  married  or  more  than 
twenty-one  years  of  age,  who  can  establish  a  con- 
tinuous residence  of  two  years  in  the  said  prov- 
inces of  Tacna  and  Arica  and  who  live  there  at 
present. 

"Persons  in  the  public  military  service,  em- 
ployees of  the  administration  or  those  that  may 
have  lost  or  have  had  suspended  the  rights  of  cit- 
izenship, in  conformity,  without  distinction,  with 
the  laws  of  Chile  or  Peru,  may  not  vote."  (Appen- 
dix, p.  57.) 

In  the  so-called  Billinghurst-Latorre  Protocol 
which  was  signed  by  the  representatives  of  the 
two  Governments  on  April  9,  1898,  "the  requi- 
sites of  nationality,  sex,  age,  civil  state,  residence, 
or  any  other  that  must  be  possessed  by  the  voters"  is 
a  question  left  to  the  decision  of  the  Government  of 
Her  Majesty  the  Queen  Regent  of  Spain,  designated 
as  arbiter.  The  signed  protocol,  therefore  does  not 
deal  with  the  qualifications  of  the  persons  entitled  to 
take  part  in  the  plebiscite.     It  only  shows  that  the 


The  Second  Question.  133 

matter  was  one  as  to  which  the  negotiators  could  not 
reach  an  agreement.  It,  therefore,  in  no  way  contrib- 
utes to  the  subject  under  discussion. 

In  1909  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Chile 
prepared  a  statement  of  the  bases  for  settlement  of 
the  Tacna-Arica  Question,  a  copy  of  which  was  trans- 
mitted to  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States 
by  the  American  Minister  to  Chile  under  date  of  No- 
vember 1,  1909. 

Section  2  of  that  statement  deals  with  the  qualifi- 
cations of  the  persons  entitled  to  take  part  in  the  plebi- 
scite.   The  section  reads  as  follows: 

"•(2)  The  voting  shall  be  by  secret  ballot  and 
in  it  shall  be  entitled  to  take  part  all  the  inhabi- 
tants— Chileans,  Peruvians  and  foreigners— who 
shall  have  the  following  qualifications: 

"(a)  Citizenship  with  right  to  vote  in  Chile  or 
Peru. 

Note:  the  same  qualifications  are  required  in  both 
countries. 

"(b)  Minimum  residence  of  six  months  (in  the 
disputed  provinces).,,  (Appendix,  p.  423.) 

On  November  5,  1909,  the  Peruvian  Minister  of  For- 
eign Affairs,  who  had  received  from  the  Chilean 
Charge  d 'Affaires,  a  memorandum  containing  the 
Chilean  statement  above  referred  to,  submitted  cer- 
tain modifications  to  the  terms  therein  suggested. 

The  section  relative  to  qualifications  of  voters,  as 
modified  by  the  Peruvian  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs, 
reads  as  follows: 

"2.  In  the  vote,  which  shall  be  public,  may  take 
part  all  the  Peruvians  and  Chileans  that  meet  the 
following  requirements: 

"a  Twenty-one  years  of  age; 


134  The  Case  oe  Chile. 

"b  Eesidence  in  the  territory  at  least  from 
July  1,  1907. 

"  Those  also  may  take  part  who,  born  in  the 
territory  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  may  be  present  at 
the  moment  of  the  vote,  if  they  shall  have  been 
registered  previously  for  that  purpose. 

"Public  employees  and  members  of  the  army 
or  of  the  police  that  may  be  in  service  in  the  pro- 
vinces may  not  vote."  {Appendix,  p.  425.) 

These  modifications  were  so  essentially  at  variance 
with  the  Chilean  proposal  that  they  were  inacceptable 
to  the  Santiago  Government.  However,  a  few  months 
later,  on  March  3,  1910,  it  attempted  to  renew  the 
negotiation  of  a  special  protocol  by  another  proposal. 
While  in  this  proposal,  which  was  made  directly  to 
the  Peruvian  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  by  the 
Chilean  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  the  qualifications 
of  voters  set  forth  in  the  previous  statement  of  1909 
were  modified  in  terms,  they  were  in  substance  the 
same.     Section  6  of  that  proposal  is  as  follows: 

"6.  Chileans,  Peruvians  and  foreigners  [males] 
that  fulfill  the  following  conditions  will  have  the 
right  to  vote : 

"a.  Twenty-one  years  of  age; 

i(b. .Ability  to  read  and  write; 

"c.  Residence  of  six  months  in  the  province." 
(Appendix,  p.  458.) 

Two  years  and  a  half  after  this  proposal  was  deliv- 
ered to  the  Peruvian  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs, 
Peru  submitted  by  telegraph  a  new  proposal  of  set- 
lement,  in  which  it  was  suggested  as  qualifications  for 
voters  the  following: 

"Persons  born  in  Tacna  and  Arica  and  Chileans 
and  Peruvians  that  may  have  resided  for  three 
years  in  the  territory  will  be  entitled  to  vote.  All 


The  Second  Question.  135 

the  voters  must  be  able  to  read  and  write.' '  (Ap- 
pendix, p.  496.) 

The  Chilean  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  on  the  same 
day,  to  wit,  November  10,  1912,  made  by  telegraph 
a  similar  proposal  to  Peru.  The  language  of  the  sen- 
tences relating  to  the  qualifications  of  voters  was  in 
fact  identical  in  the  two  telegrams.  It  should  be  noted, 
however,  that  the  inclusion  of  persons  born  in  Tacna 
and  Arica,  which  had  been  previously  resisted  by 
Chile,  was  of  little  importance  since  in  both  proposals 
it  was  proposed  that  the  holding  of  the  plebiscite 
should  be  postponed  until  1933,  that  is,  fifty  years 
after  the  territory  had  been  ceded  to  Chile  and  had 
come  under  her  dominion  and  sovereignty,  when  it 
was  to  be  presumed  that  Peruvians  born  in  Tacna  and 
Arica  but  no  longer  resident  there  would  be  few  in 
number  and  a  negligible  factor  in  the  result  of  the 
plebiscite.  While  today  the  right  to  vote  because 
of  birth  in  the  territory  is  an  unimportant  mat- 
ter, the  fact  that  it  is  not  in  conformity  with 
the  doctrine  of  "consent  of  the  governed,,  ought  to 
be  considered  by  the  Arbitrator. 

In  reply  to  the  telegram  of  the  Chilean  Minister  of 
Foreign  Affairs,  the  Peruvian  Minister  of  Foreign  Af- 
fairs telegraphed  on  the  same  date,  November  10th, 
confirming  his  previous  telegram  containing  the  pro- 
posal which  he  had  made  and  repeating  the  same  terms 
used  in  his  first  telegram,  in  which  the  qualifications 
of  voters  are  identical  with  the  ones  which  are  quoted 
above. 

In  summarizing  the  proposals  in  the  negotiations 
as  to  the  qualifications  of  the  persons  entitled  to  take 
part  in  the  plebiscite  the  following  seem  to  have  been 
approved  by  both  Governments  in  their  negotia- 
tions subsequent  to  the  Billinghurst-Latorre  Protocol, 


136  The  Case  of  Chile. 

wherein  arbitration  of  the  qualifications  was  provided, 
to  wit :  Male  persons  of  Chilean  and  Peruvian  nation- 
ality who  are  21  years  of  age  provided  that  they  are 
able  to  read  and  write  and  are  residents  of  Tacna  or 
Arica  and  have  been  for  a  period  varying  from  six 
months  to  three  years,  the  latter  period  being  based 
on  the  postponement  of  the  plebiscite  to  the  year  1933. 

In  the  earlier  negotiation  Peru  sought  to  confine 
the  right  of  balloting  to  persons  of  Peruvian  nation- 
ality, but  this  limitation  on  the  elecforate  was  aban- 
doned in  the  later  negotiations. 

It  should  also  be  noted  that  Chile  sought  to  have 
included  in  the  persons  eligible  to  participate  in  the 
plebiscite  "foreigners"  who  possessed  the  qualifica- 
tions of  age,  residence  and  education,  while  Peru  de- 
sired that  persons  born  in  the  territory  should  be 
permitted  to  vote  regardless  of  present  residence. 

It  is  needless  to  review  the  arguments  advanced 
by  both  parties  in  urging  the  inclusion  in  the  registry 
of  plebiscitary  voters  the  particular  group  proposed 
by  each.  It  may  be  observed,  however,  that,  under 
the  applied  doctrine  of  "consent  of  the  governed,' ' 
actual  residence  in  the  territory  is  far  more  important 
than  place  of  birth  or  even  citizenship.  If  this  ob- 
servation is  true,  and  Chile  submits  that  it  cannot  be 
successfuly  denied,  then  the  exclusion  from  the  reg- 
istry of  non-residents  born  in  Tacna  and  Arica  and 
not  land-owners  there,  would  seem  to  follow  as  a  mat- 
ter of  course  and  the  inclusion  of  all  persons  regard- 
less of  nationality,  who  are  resident  in  the  territory 
for  a  given  period,  would  seem  justified. 

3.  Method  of  Registering  Voters. 

Having  decided  upon  the  qualifications  of  persons 
entitled  to  cast  their  votes  in  the  plebiscite  to  be  held 


The  Second  Question.  137 

in  Tacna  and  Arica,  the  next  condition  to  receive  con- 
sideration should  be  the  registration  or  inscription  of 
the  names  of  such  persons  by  a  competent  official 
agency  in  order  to  prevent  persons  other  than  those 
qualified  from  participating  in  the  plebiscitary  pro- 
ceeding. 

The  primary  question  to  be  decided  is  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  agency  or  agencies  to  register  voters,  a 
question  which  has  been  the  subject  of  discussion  and 
disagreement  between  Chile  and  Peru  during  the  vari- 
ous efforts  made  by  them  to  agree  upon  the  special 
protocol  provided  for  in  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of 
Ancon.  It  will,  therefore,  be  appropriate  and  helpful 
to  review  in  brief  the  negotiations  dealing  with  regis- 
tration of  the  plebiscitary  voters. 

The  Peruvian  proposal  in  1894  as  to  the  constitution 
of  the  agency  for  registration  was  as  follows : 

"  There  will  be  formed  in  the  city  of  Tacna,  when 
the  registration  of  those  that  have  a  right  to  vote 
is  begun,  a  superior  committee  or  board  composed 
of  one  delegate  appointed  by  the  Government  of 
Chile  another,  by  the  Government  of  Peru  and  an 

umpire,  who  will  be  designated  by  the 

of- ."  (Appendix,  p.  55.) 

In  the  Billinghurst-Latorre  Protocol  of  1898,  the  fol- 
lowing provision  is  made : 

"  Article  II.  A  directive  board,  composed  of 
one  representative  of  the  Government  of  Chile,  one 
representative  of  the  Government  of  Peru  and  a 
third  party  designated  by  the  Government  of 
Spain,  will  preside  over  the  acts  and  take  the 
necessary  steps  to  carry  the  plebiscite  into  effect. 
The  third  party  designated  will  serve  in  the  ca- 
pacity of  chairman  of  the  board. 

"This  board  will  have  authority: 


138  The  Case  of  Chile. 

"1.  To  make  up  and  publish  a  general  register 
of  all  those  that  may  have  a  right  to  vote ;  *  *  * ' ' 
(Appendix,  p.  141.) 

In  the  proposal  of  the  Chilean  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs  under  date  of  October  15,  1909,  as  to  the  terms 
of  a  special  protocol,  no  direct  reference  is  made  to  an 
agency  in  control  of  the  registering  of  voters,  but  the 
necessity  of  registration  and  the  modifications  pro- 
posed by  Peru  indicate  that  the  so-called  "Electoral 
Commission"  having  a  general  control  of  the  plebiscite 
was  to  have  control  of  the  registration  of  voters.  The 
constitution  of  the  Commission  is  thus  provided  for  in 
the  Chilean  statement: 

"(3)  Chile  shall  preside  over  the  acts  connected 
with  the  plebiscite  and  the  Electoral  Commission 
shall  be  composed  of  three  members :  a  Chilean, 
who  shall  be  President,  a  Peruvian,  and  a  neu- 
tral.' '  (Appendix,  p.  423.) 

In  a  note  included  in  the  statement  and  commenting 
on  the  above  proposal  there  appears  the  following : 

"She  [Chile]  would  even  be  disposed  to  consent 
that  the  Electoral  Commission  be  composed  of  four 
members ;  a  Chilean,  who  would  preside ;  a  Peru- 
vian, and  two  neutrals  of  differing  nationalities, 
with  the  condition  that  in  case  of  a  tie  the  opinion 
of  the  President  shall  prevail,  but  this  is  the  far- 
thest concession  she  could  make.''  (Appendix,  p. 
424.) 

To  the  foregoing  proposal  of  Chile  the  Peruvian 
Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  on  November  5,  1909, 
offered  as  a  modification  or  counterproposal : 

"3.  The  Directive  Board  will  be  composed  of 
three  members,  namely:  one  Peruvian,  one  Chil- 


The  Second  Question.  139 

ean,  and  one  neutral  designated  by  a  friendly 
nation.  The  chairmanship  shall  be  held  by  the 
neutral.  The  boards  for  the  registration  and  re- 
ception of  the  votes  will  also  be  composed  of  one 
Peruvian,  one  Chilean  and  one  neutral.  The  chair- 
manship of  these  boards  shall  also  be  held  by  the 
neutral  delegate.' '  (Appendix,  p.  425.) 

In  the  revised  Chilean  proposal  of  March  3,  1910, 
the  constitution  of  the  registering  agency  is  defined  in 
the  following  terms : 

"3.  Both  the  Directive  Board,  which  will  func- 
tion in  the  city  of  Tacna,  and  the  registration  and 
receiving  committees,  which  will  function  in  Tacna 
and  Arica,  will  be  composed  of  three  members, 
namely:  One  member  appointed  by  the  Govern- 
ment of  Chile,  another  designated  by  the  Govern- 
ment of  Peru,  and  a  third  elected  by  the  Consular 
Corps  resident  in  Tacna  or  in  Arica  by  a  ma- 
jority of  votes. 

"The  chairmanship  of  the  Directive  Board  and 
of  the  registration  and  receiving  committees  will 
belong  to  the  member  appointed  by  the  Govern- 
ment of  Chile.' '  (Appendix,  p.  458.) 

In  the  telegrams  exchanged  between  the  Ministers 
of  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  two  countries  on  November 
10, 1912,  both  officials  used  identical  language  and  were 
manifestly  of  one  mind  as  to  the  composition  of  the 
official  body  which  was  to  have  direction  of  the  plebi- 
scite and  the  necessary  act  of  registration.  The  lan- 
guage is  as  follows : 

<<#  •  •  j  prOp0gei  as  to  the  plebiscite  of 
Tacna  and  Arica,  its  postponement  until  1933  and 
its  celebration  under  boards  formed  by  a  commit- 
tee that  will  be  composed  of  five  delegates,  namely : 
two  Chileans  appointed  by  Chile,  two  Peruvians, 


140  The  Case  of  Chile. 

appointed  by  Peru  and  the  President  of  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  Justice  of  Chile,  who  will  serve  as 
chairman.,,  (Appendix,  p.  498.) 

In  this  negotiation  of  1912,  which  was  the  only  one, 
that  resulted  in  a  full  agreement  regarding  the  terms 
for  the  plebiscite  between  the  Executives  of  the  two 
Governments  and  which  only  an  untimely  and  unfor- 
tunate political  change  in  the  Peruvian  Government 
prevented  from  going  into  effect,  the  parties  agreed 
that  the  commission  controlling  the  holding  of  the  pleb- 
iscite, an  essential  factor  of  which  was  the  registra- 
tion of  voters,  should  be  composed  of  three  Chileans 
and  two  Peruvians. 

While  Chile  might  with  propriety  insist  that  there 
had  been  a  "meeting  of  the  minds"  of  the  two  Govern- 
ments as  to  the  nationality  of  the  Commissioners,  it  is 
not  her  purpose  to  urge  this  agreement  upon  the  Arbi- 
trator, who  possesses,  under  the  provisions  of  the  Sup- 
plementary Agreement,  the  power  to  determine  the 
conditions  for  the  holding  of  such  plebiscite.  While 
such  an  arrangement  has  advantages,  which  will  sug- 
gest themselves,  particularly  if  the  holding  of  the  pleb- 
iscite is  postponed  for  a  period  of  years  as  was  the 
case  in  the  agreement  of  1912,  the  Arbitrator  may 
deem  it  to  be  more  in  accord  with  international  prac- 
tice and  more  liable  to  avoid  future  controversy  to 
have  the  control  of  the  plebiscite  in  the  hands  of  a 
mixed  commission  composed  of  an  equal  number 
of  Chileans  and  Peruvians  and  a  commissioner  of  neu- 
tral nationality.  Chile  in  1909  and  1910  was  agreeable 
to  a  commission  so  constituted  and  does  not  seriously 
object  to  such  a  mixed  commission. 

The  presidency  or  chairmanship  of  the  commission, 
however,  which  by  the  exchanges  of  1912  was  confided 
to  a  Chilean  member  of  the  Commission,  stands  upon 


The  Second  Question.  141 

an  entirely  different  footing  since  throughout  the  re- 
cent negotiations  the  right  of  Chile  to  name  the  presi- 
dent has  been  insisted  upon  by  the  Chilean  Govern- 
ment. In  the  statement  of  the  Chilean  Minister  of 
Foreign  Affairs  of  1909,  above  referred  to,  a  note  on 
this  subject  appears : 

"Note:  As  to  this  point  Chile  thinks  that  the 
right  to  preside  over  the  plebiscite  can  not  be  con- 
ceded by  her  seeing  that  her  sovereign  rights  con- 
tinue until  the  inhabitants  of  Tacna  and  Arica  may 
determine  to  return  to  the  dominion  of 'Peru.  This 
does  not  permit  her  to  act  otherwise  without  vio- 
lating her  own  national  decorum  and  dignity. 
Chile  is  disposed  to  accept  whatever  method  Peru 
may  propose  in  order  to  assure  the  correctness 
and  fairness  of  the  plebiscite,  but  she  can  not  give 
up  the  presidency  thereof.  In  her  opinion  the  giv- 
ing up  of  the  presidency  would  not  tend  to  this 
end,  because  she  does  not  insist  upon  it  with  the 
purpose  of  making  the  plebiscite  unfair  and  incor- 
rect, but  rather  because  the  existing  legal  situation 
requires  it,  and  because  of  the  rights  conferred 
upon  her  by  the  Treaty  of  Ancon."  (Appendix, 
p.  424.) 

Particular  attention  is  directed  to  the  phrase  "the 
existing  legal  situation  requires  it,"  and  in  conjunc- 
tion with  that  assertion  should  be  read  the  following 
provision  in  the  Supplementary  Agreement  of  July  20, 
1922: 

"It  is  understood,  in  the  interest  of  peace  and 
good  order,  that  in  this  event  and  pending  an 
agreement  as  to  the  disposition  of  the  territory, 
the  administrative  organization  of  the  provinces 
shall  not  be  disturbed.' ' 

It  is  to  be  presumed  that  in  the  matter  of  the  regis- 
tration of  voters  and  the  casting  of  ballots  at  the  pleb- 


142  The  Case  of  Chile. 

iscite  the  commission  or  agency  charged  with  con- 
ducting it  will  mid  it  necessary  to  exercise,  at  least  in- 
directly, a  certain  measure  of  police  power  in  the  dis- 
charge of  its  duties.  The  preservation  of  order  and  the 
enforcement  of  the  rulings  of  the  commission  in  an  effi- 
cient manner  will  require  that  the  constabulary  and 
other  police  shall  come  into  direct  contact  with  the 
president  of  the  commission.  If  this  is  not  so,  popular 
disorders  and  interference  with  the  registration  and 
balloting  may  be  anticipated  in  view  of  the  intense  feel- 
ings and  patriotic  rivalry  existing  among  the  inhabi- 
tants of  Tacna  and  Area  belonging  to  different  nation- 
alities. 

The  police  power  in  the  territory  is  Chilean  and  it 
is  exercised  by  Chilean  officers  and  officials.  It  is  evi- 
dently impracticable  for  them  to  act  upon  ap- 
peals received  from  any  other  than  an  official  of 
the  Chilean  Government,  as  the  president  of  the  com- 
mission would  be  if  he  were  of  Chilean  nationality. 
If  the  president'  of  the  commission  were  of  other  na- 
tionality than  Chilean,  when  police  assistance  was  re- 
quired to  enforce  an  order  of  the  commission,  the  pro- 
cedure would  necessarily  be  less  simple  and  less  effi- 
cient. It  w^ould  unquestionably  cause  delay  and  pos- 
sibly friction  and  confusion  and  would,  as  a  conse- 
quence, prevent  that  promptness  of  action  which,  it 
would  seem,  is  desirable,  if  not  essential,  to  the  ef- 
fective exercise  of  the  functions  which  may  devolve 
upon  a  plebiscitary  commission. 

Regardless,  therefore,  of  the  arguments  which  might 
with  propriety  and  force  be  urged  by  Chile  on  the 
grounds  of  national  dignity,  of  the  rights  which  be- 
long to  the  possessor  of  the  dominion  and  sovereignty 
of  the  territory  and  of  the  power  to  exercise  them, 
all  of  which  are  favorable  to  the  designation  of  a  Chil- 


The  Second  Questioh.  143 

ean  president  for  the  commission,  considerations  of 
practicability  and  efficiency  in  the  functioning  of  the 
commission  are  wholly  in  favor  of  the  Chilean  con- 
tention that  the  presidency  should  be  held  by  a  Chilean 
commissioner. 

To  avoid  making  the  agency  or  agencies  for  carrying 
out  the  plebiscite  too  cumbersome  Chile  would  re- 
spectfully suggest,  in  accordance  with  her  proposals 
of  1909  and  1910,  that  there  be  a  Plebiscitary  Commis- 
sion created,  which  shall  be  constituted  of  one  Chilean 
commissioner,  one  Peruvian  commissioner  and  one 
commissioner  of  American  nationality  named  by  the 
President  of  the  United  States ;  and,  in  order  that  the 
duties  of  the  commissioners  may  be  performed  with 
efficiency  and  despatch,  that  the  President  of  the  Pleb- 
iscitary Commission  be  the  commissioner  appointed 
by  the  Government  of  Chile. 

Chile  further  suggests  that  there  be  created  two 
Boards  of  Registration,  subordinate  to  and  subject  to 
the  direction  of  the  Plebiscitary  Commission,  each  of 
such  Boards  being  composed  of  a  Chilean  member  and 
a  Peruvian  member  to  be  named  by  their  respective 
Governments  and  a  member  of  American  nationality 
named  by  the  American  Commissioner  of  the  Plebisci- 
tary Commission. 

In  the  Peruvian  memorandum  of  1894  for  the  hold- 
ing of  the  plebiscite  the  powers  of  the  "  superior  com- 
mittee or  board, ' '  which  was  to  control  the  proceeding, 
were  denned  as  follows : 

"This  board  will  have  exclusive  powers  of  its 
own  to  make  up  the  general  register  of  voters 
whose  names  are  listed  in  the  partial  registers  of 
the  localities  designated  in  a  later- article ;  to  order . 
the  publication  of  this  general  register;  and'* to 
make  the  scrutiny  and  the  general  regulations  of 


144  The  Case  of  Chile. 

the  suffrage,  announcing  the  result  of  the  vote, 
which  it  will  communicate  immediately  to  both 
governments. 

1 '  Also  it  will  settle,  without  appeal,  by  a  ma- 
jority of  votes,  all  the  difficulties,  doubts  and  ques- 
tions that  arise  in  respect  of  registration  and  dur- 
ing the  voting,  which  shall  be  made  to  appear  in 
the  respective  minutes,  or  in  written  reports  of 
the  commissaries  of  each  locality."  (Appendix, 
p.  56.) 

In  this  plan  there  were  also  provisions  for  "regis- 
tration committees' '  to  sit  in  the  city  of  Tacna  and  the 
city  of  Arica  to  make  up  the  register  of  voters  in  the 
provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica  respectively. 

In  the  Billinghurst-Latorre  Protocol  of  1898,  Arti- 
cles IV  and  V  read  as  follows : 

"Article  IV.  There  will  be  four  registration 
committees  or  boards :  one  in  Tacna,  one  in  Tara- 
ta,  one  in  Arica  and  the  other  in  Lluta. 

"These  committees  will  be  composed  of: 

* 1 1.  One  appointee  of  the  Government  of  Chile ; 

"2.  One  appointee  of  the  Government  of  Peru; 

"3.  One  commissary,  appointed  by  the  directive 
board  of  the  plebiscite,  who  will  serve  in  the 
capacity  of  chairman. 

"The  aforementioned  committees  will  establish 
quarters,  not  later  than  eight  days  aft^r  the  instal- 
lation of  the  directive  board  in  Tacna,  and  they 
will  function  for  forty  consecutive  days,  from  ten 
in  the  forenoon  until  four  in  the  afternoon.  Daily, 
when  they  cease  their  labors,  they  will  place  at  the 
bottom  of  the  last  name  inscribed  a  note  signed 
by  all  their  members,  in  which  shall  be  given  the 
number  of  persons  listed  during  the  day.  The 
pages  of  the  register  in  which  the  inscriptions 
shall  be  made  will  also  be  signed  by  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  committees. 

"The  resolutions  of  the  inspecting  committees 
will  be  adopted  bv  a  majority  vote,  and  their  reso- 


The  Second  Question.  145 

lutions  will  be  appealable  to  the  directive  board. 

"The  Committees  will  inscribe  in  the  registers 
all  persons  that  shall  so  request  and  that  shall 
have  a  right  to  vote,  according  to  the  decision  of 
the  arbiter  designated  in  Article  I,  and  they  will 
issue  to  them  registration  certificates,  which  those 
registered  must  show  in  the  act  of  voting. 

"Whenever  the  board  shall  refuse  to  inscribe 
the  name  of  a  person,  it  must  note  in  the  minutes 
of  the  session  of  the  day  the  name  of  the  person 
rejected  and  the  cause  of  his  rejection.  The  per- 
son to  whom  registration  shall  be  denied  will  have 
a  right  to  require  a  copy  of  that  part  of  the  min- 
utes, authorized  by  the  members  of  the  committee. 

' '  Not  later  than  forty-eight  hours  after  the  con- 
clusion of  their  functions,  registration  committees 
will  deliver  the  registers  and  other  original  docu- 
ments to  the  directive  board. 

"Article  V.  The  directive  board  will  determine, 
on  the  basis  of  the  arbitral  decision,  the  means 
whereby  shall  be  proven  the  possession  of  the 
qualifications  which,  according  to  the  said  decision, 
voters  must  have."   (Appendix,  pp.  142-143.) 

The  provisions  as  to  the  registration  of  voters  in 
the  Billinghurst-Latorre  Protocol  were  practically 
adopted  in  the  statement  of  the  Chilean  Minister  of 
Foreign  Affairs  in  1909,  and  were  accepted  in  the 
modifications  proposed  by  the  Peruvian  Minister  of 
Foreign  Affairs  on  November  5,  1909. 

In  the  substituted  proposal  of  Chile  delivered  to  the 
Peruvian  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  on  March  3, 
1910,  the  duty  of  the  commission  directing  the  plebi- 
scite is  denned  thus : 

"4.  It  will  be  the  duty  of  the  directive  board: 
11  a.  To  make  up  and  publish  the  general  list  of 

all  the  voters,  in  conformity  with  the  partial  lists 

of  the  registration  committees; 


146  The  Case  of  Chile. 

"b.  To  exercise  the  general  scrutiny,  to  an- 
nounce the  result  of  the  plebiscite  and  to  commu- 
nicate it  to  the  Governments  of  Peru  and  Chile; 

"c.  To  settle  all  doubts  and  questions  that  may 
arise  in  the  registrations,  votes  and  other  plebi- 
scitary acts ; 

"d.  To  adopt  all  the  measures  that  shall  assure 
the  correctness  and  seriousness  of  the  plebiscitary 
proceedings  and  public  order  during  their  accom- 
plishment. (Appendix,  p.  458.) 

It  also  provided  for  two  registration  committees  in 
the  following: 

"5.  The  registration  committees  will  be  installed, 
one  in  Tacna  and  the  other  in  Arica,  within  eight 
days  after  the  constitution  of  the  directive  board, 
and  they  will  function  for  twenty  consecutive  days, 
from  ten  in  the  forenoon  until  four  in  the  after- 
noon, inscribing  in  the  lists  the  names  of  persons 
that  request  registration  and  meet  the  require- 
ments indicated  in  the  following  section."  (Ap- 
pendix, p.  458:) 

To  the  foregoing  should  be  added : 

"7.  The  registration  committees  will  deliver  to 
each  person  a  registration  ticket,  which  the  latter 
must  present  afterward  to  the  receiving  commit- 
tee. 

"8.  In  case  the  registration  committee  shall  re- 
fuse to  register  a  person,  it  must  note  in  the  min- 
utes of  the  session  of  the  day  the  name  of  the  per- 
son rejected  and  the  reason  of  his  exclusion,  and 
he  will  have  the  right  to  demand'a  copy  of  the  part 
of  the  minutes  that  pertain  to  him. 

"9.  Following  the  last  registration,  the  members 
of  the  registration  committee  will  daily  stamp 
their  signatures,  and  they  will  place  above  them, 
in  letters,  the  number  of  persons  registered  dur- 
ing the  day. 


ThI:  Second  Question.  147 

' '  10.  When  the  period  for  registration  shall  ter- 
minate, the  directive  board  will  cause  the  lists  to 
be  published  within  the  next  eight  days  following, 
in  the  newspapers  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  and  on 
placards  that  will  be  displayed  in  the  public  build- 
ings." (Appendix,  p.  459.) 

In  the  negotiations  of  1912,  the  method'* of  registra- 
tion, the  duties  of  the  boards  provided  for  and  the 
powers  of  the  general  committee  proposed  are  not  set 
forth  in  the  exchange  of  telegrams  between  the  two 
Governments. 

In  the  opinion  of  Chile  the  details  of  the  manner  in 
which  registration  should  take  place  and  the  registries 
of  plebiscitary  voters  made  up,  together  with  right  of 
appeal  from  the  decision  of  a  Registration  Board  and 
of  the  procedure  on  appeal  should  be  confided  to  the 
Plebiscitary  Commission.  The  Commission  should  be 
empowered  to  draft  and  promulgate  such  directions 
and  rules  concerning  the  Registration  Boards,  the 
registration  lists,  appeals  from  the  decisions  of  the 
Boards  and  correction  of  the  lists  as  it  shall  deem 
proper  to  insure  a  full,  free  and  honest  expression  of 
the  popular  will,  it  being  provided  as  a  condition  that 
the  lists  of  registered  voters  made  up  by  the  Registra- 
tion Boards  be  opened  to  public  scrutiny  a  sufficient 
period  before  the  plebiscite  is  held  to  furnish  oppor- 
tunity for  investigation  of  cases  and  correction  of  the 
lists. 

For  the  purpose  of  formulating  its  directions  and 
rules  and  promulgating  them,  the  Plebiscitary  Com- 
mission should  meet,  preferably  in  the  city  of  Arica, 
prior  to  the  appointment  of  the  Registration  Boards 
and  the  opening  of  the  official  registries. 

All  directions,  rules,  decisions  and  orders  of  the 
Plebiscitary  Commission  should  be  adopted  by  a  ma- 


148  The  Case  of  Chile. 

jority  vote  of  the  commissioners;  and  every  proceed- 
ing of  a  Registration  Board  and  every  exercise  of  au- 
thority confided  to  it  by  the  Commission  should  be  per- 
formed or  taken  only  by  a  majority  vote  of  its  mem- 
bers, all  such  proceedings  and  exercise  of  authority  by , 
a  Registration  Board  to  be  subject  to  review  upon  ap- 
peal or  at  its  own  instance  by  the  Plebiscitary  Commis- 
sion. 

Directly  connected  with  the  powers  and  duties  of 
the  Plebiscitary  Commission  the  Arbitrator  should, 
it  is  respectfully  submitted,  impose  as  a  condition  of 
the  plebiscite  that  prior  to  the  assembling  of  the  com- 
mission provision  should  be  made  for  the  apprehension 
and  arrest  of  persons  charged  with  fraud  or  perjury 
in  connection  with  the  registration  and  voting  in  the 
plebiscite,  or  with  interference  with  the  commission 
in  the  performance  of  its  duties,  for  compelling  at- 
tendance of  witnesses  before  the  commission,  for  the 
punishment  of  witnesses  who  refuse  to  answer,  and 
also  for  the  punishment  of  those  found  guilty  of 
fraudulent  practices  or  perjury  and  also  those  found 
guilty  of  interference  with  the  commission. 

4.   Method  of  Receiving  the  Votes. 

If  the  suggestion  that  a  Plebiscitary  Commission 
with  general  powers  be  given  control  of  all  the  pro- 
ceedings relating  to  the  plebiscite  and  also  authority 
to  issue  directions  and  promulgate  rules  governing 
such  proceedings,  it  would  seem  proper  that  it  should 
also  determine  the  manner  of  receiving  the  ballots  of 
the  registered  voters,  the  place  of  receiving  them,  the 
number  of  days  during  which  the  ballots  might  be  re- 
ceived, the  formalities  of  voting,  and  all  other  steps 
necessary  to  meet  the  conditions  laid  down  by  the  Ar- 
bitrator in  his  decision. 


The  Second  Question.  '  149 

The  power  should  also  be  given  the  Commission  to 
employ  the  necessary  clerical  and  other  assistants  as 
it  may  require  for  the  proper  performance  of  its  du- 
ties and  of  the  duties  of  the  Registration  Board. 

In  order  to  avoid  undue  multiplication  of  plebisci- 
tary officials,  it  would  appear  wise  to  provide  that 
the  Registration  Boards,  after  they  have  completed 
their  duties  in  making  up  the  lists  of  qualified  voters 
and  after  the  registeries  have  been  closed,  should  auto- 
matically and  without  reorganization  become  Election 
Boards  for  the  receipt  of  the  votes  in  accordance  with 
the  directions  and  rules  governing  the  voting  as  the 
Plebiscitary  Commission  may  promulgate,  being  sub- 
ject to  the  complete  control  of  the  Commission  as 
when  they  sat  as  Registration  Boards. 

It  is  needless  in  this  connection  to  review  the  nego- 
tiations between  Chile  and  Peru,  as  there  was  appar- 
ently a  common  agreement  that  the  same  official  bodies, 
which  made  up  the  lists  of  voters,  should  also  be  the 
ones  to  receive  the  ballots.  As  to  that  feature  of  the 
proceedings  there  has  been  no  controversy. 

If,  however,  the  Arbitrator  should  decide  that  it  is 
his  duty  under  the  Washington  Protocol  and  Supple- 
mentary Agreement,  in  determining  the  conditions; 
for  carrying  out  the  plebiscite,  to  draft  the  rules  of 
procedure  as  to  the  receipt  of  the  votes,  as  well  as 
those  relating  to  the  registration  of  voters,  and  con- 
siders that  he  ought  in  the  circumstances  to  go  further 
than  direct  the  Plebiscitary  Commission  to  draft  such 
rules,  Chile  makes  no  suggestions,  preferring  to  leave 
these  matters  to  the  judgment  of  the  Arbitrator. 

Confident  that  the  proposal  to  confide  this  power 
to  the  Plebiscitary  Commission  and  to  make  the  ex- 
ercise of  that  power  a  condition  of  the  plebiscite,  will 


150-  The  Case  of  Chile. 

be  accepted  as  the  most  practical  method  of  determin- 
ing the  procedure,  Chile  deems  that,  in  any  event,  it 
would  serve  no  good  purpose  to  consider  at  this  place 
the  formalities  of  registration  and  balloting  or  to  bur- 
den the  Case  with  comment  and  discussion  concerning 
details  which  she  believes  will  not  be  specifically  dealt 
with  by  the  Arbitrator. 

5.    Time  for  Holding  the  Plebiscite. 

The  time  for  holding  the  plebiscite  is  one  of  the  con- 
ditions which  should  be  determined  by  the  Arbitrator, 
who  in  fixing  the  time  should  take  into  consideration 
the  delays  which  seem  to  be  unavoidable  when  a  pro- 
ceeding is  dependent  upon  joint  or  identical  action  by 
governments. 

In  the  present  case  the  appointment  of  a  member  of 
a  plebiscitary  commission  and  of  members  of  regis- 
tration boards  by  the  executive  power  in  each  Repub- 
lic, the  appropriation  of  funds  for  the  service  of  the 
commission  and  the  making  of  provision  for  the  func- 
tioning of  the  commission'  are  necessary  preliminaries 
to  the  effective  carrying  out  of  the  plebiscite.  In  lay- 
ing down  the  condition  as  to  the  time  of  holding  the 
plebiscite  the  Arbitrator  ought,  therefore,  to  take  into 
account  the  time  that  will  elapse  before  these  neces- 
sary acts  can  be  performed  after  he  has  rendered  his 
decision. 

In  the  negotiations  relative  to  the  special  protocol 
contemplated  by  the  parties  under  Article  III  of  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon  the  time  for  holding  the  plebscite 
was  a  subject  of  discussion. 

The  Peruvian  memorandum  of  1894  fixes  no  time 
for  the  assembling  of  the  proposed  "superior  commit- 
tee or  board,' '  but  it  is  provided  in  section  III  of  the 
memorandum  that: 


The  Second  Question.  ■   151 

"The  registration  committees  will  establish 
quarters  a  month  after  the  ratification  of  the. 
present  protocol  and  they  will  function  for  an- 
other month,  beginning  with  the  date  on  which 
'their  installation  shall  be  announced."  (Appen- 
dix, p.  56.) 

In  the  Billinghurst-Latorre  Protocol  of  1898,  which 
provided  for  the  submission  to  the  arbitration  of  the 
Spanish  Government  two  questions,  the  following  pro- 
vision as  to  the  time  of  holding  the  plebiscite  is 
made: 

"Art.  III.  Not  later  than  forty  days  after  the 
announcement  of  the  decision  of  the  arbiter  to 
whom  Article  I  refers,  the  Governments  of  Chile 
and  Peru  will  proceed  to  appoint  their  representa- 
tives. The  directive  board  will  establish  quarters 
in  the  city  of  Tacna  and  it  will  begin  to  function 
within  a  period  of  ten  days  reckoned  after  the 
third  party,  who  shall  be  designated  by  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Spain,  shall  be  present  in  that  city." 
(Appendix,  p.  142.) 

The  statement  of  the  Chilean  Minister  for  Foreign 
Affairs  in  1909  begins  with  the  following: 

"(1)  The  plebiscite  will  be  held  on  a  date  that 
will  allow  Chile  to  fulfill  her  undertakings  with 
Bolivia  as  to  the  construction  of  the  Arica-La  Paz 
railroad.  Note:  It  is  calculated  that  the  section 
in  Chile  will  be  finished  in  1911."  (Appendix 
p.  423.) 

The  proposed  time  for  holding  the  plebiscite,  which 
was  in  a  measure  indefinite,  dependent  as  it  was  upon 
a  contingency,  was  subsequently,  on  March  3,  1910, 
changed  by  the  Chilean  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  to 
a  definite  time,  the  provision  being:  • 


152  The  Case  of  Chile. 

"1.  The  plebiscite  will  take  place  six  months 
after  the  exchange  of  the  ratifications  of  the  pro- 
tocol." 

In  the  exchange  of  identic  telegrams  between  the 
Ministers  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  two  countries, 
which  constituted  the  understanding  of  1912,  the  mu- 
tual arrangement  was  that  the  plebiscite  should  not 
be  held  until  the  year  1933.  The  reasons  for  this  post- 
ponement were  cogently  stated  by  President  Billing- 
hurst  in  his  secret  message  to  the  Peruvian  Congress 
submitted  on  November  30,  1912.  While  Chile  does 
not  deny  the  soundness  of  these  reasons  or  desire  to 
controvert  the  convincing  arguments  which  were  ad- 
vanced by  President  Billinghurst,  and  while  a  post- 
ponement of  the  plebiscite  to  the  year  1933  would  un- 
doubtedly work  to  the  benefit  of  Chile  as  she  would,  ac- 
cording to  the  Supplementary  Agreement  of  July  20, 
1922,  continue  in  undisputed  possession  of  the  do- 
minion and  sovereignty  over  the  territory  of  Tacna 
and  Arica  for  the  period  between  the  rendition  of  the 
arbitral  award  and  the  holding  of  the  plebiscite,  it  is 
not  the  purpose  in  this  Case  to  urge  upon  the  Arbitra- 
tor that  a  condition  of  holding  the  plebiscite  should  be 
that  it  is  not  to  take  place  until  the  year  1933.  What- 
ever advantage  might  accrue  to  Chile  by  reason  of 
such  postponement  she  unhesitatingly  relinquishes  for 
the  sake  of  bringing  to  an  end,  as  soon  as  the  circum- 
stances permit,  a  situation  in  the  relations  between 
Chile  and  Peru  which  is  a  constant  source  of  irritation 
and  will  continue  to  disturb  their  intercourse  until  the 
Tacna-Arica  Question  is  finally  settled  beyond  the 
possibility  of  revival. 

In  the  opinion  of  Chile  the  postponement  of  the 
plebiscite  for  a  period  of  years  would  create  almost  as 
undesirable  a  state  of  affairs  in  the  relations  between 


The  Second  Question.  153 

Chile  and  Peru  as  would  a  decision  by  the  Arbitrator 
that  no  plebiscite  should  be  held,  which  would  amount 
to  referring  the  question  back  to  the  parties  for  a  new 
diplomatic  negotiation  and  compel  a  postponement  of  a 
final  settlement  which  presumably  would  not  be  for  a 
short  period  if  the  past  thirty  years  of  controversy 
can  be  taken  as  a  criterion  of  the  duration  of  such  a 
negotiation. 

It  is  the  earnest  desire  and  hope  of  Chile  that  the 
present  arbitration  will  forever  end  this  unfortunate 
dispute  and  that  the  time  of  settlement  through  the 
medium  of  a  plebiscite  may  be  in  the  near  future. 

With  that  dominant  purpose  in  mind  Chile  respect- 
fully suggests  that  a  year  after  the  rendition  of  the 
award  by  the  Arbitrator  would  furnish  ample  time  for 
the  parties  to  comply  with  any  conditions  precedent 
imposed  by  the  Arbitrator  and  that  at  the  end  of  that 
term  the  Plebiscitary  Commission,  if  the  constitution 
of  such  a  supervisory  and  directive  body  is  decided 
upon  by  the  Arbitrator  as  a  condition  for  holding  the 
plebiscite,  should  forthwith  assemble  and  enter  upon 
its  duties,- the  time  for  registration  and  balloting  to  be 
determined  by  that  Commission. 

In  view  of  the  possibility  that  the  needful  prelim- 
inary acts  may  be  performed  within  a  shorter  term 
than  one  year,  a  further  condition  might  appropriately 
provide  that  in  such  an  event  the  parties  may  by  an 
exchange  of  notes  shorten  the  term  so  that  the  Com- 
mission should  assemble  within  less  than  a  year  after 
the  decision  of  the  Arbitrator  has  been  communicated 
to  the  two  Governments. 

6.  Payment  of  the  Ten  Millions. 

Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  makes  the  pay- 
ment of  ten  million  Chilean  pesos  or  ten  million  Peru- 


154  The  Case  of  Chile. 

vian  soles  an  obligation  to  be  performed  by  the  coun- 
try successful  in  the  plebiscite.  It  is  as  much  an  in- 
tegral part  of  the  Treaty  as  the  holding  of  the  plebi- 
scite. It  was  also  provided  in  the  Article,  as  has  been 
stated,  that  the  terms  and  time  of  payment  should  be 
included  in  the  special  protocol  prescribing  "the 
manner  in  which  the  plebiscitum  is  to  be  carried  out. ' ' 
By  the  joinder  of  these  two  subjects  in  the  proposed 
protocol  they  are  made  interdependent  and  insepa- 
rable, and  consequently  the  fixing  of  the  terms  and 
time  of  payment  by  the  successful  party  becomes  an 
essential  and  unavoidable  condition  to  the  carrying 
out  of  the  plebiscite;  a  condition  which  should,  in  the 
opinion  of  Chile,  be  laid  down  by  the  Arbitrator  under 
the  jurisdictional  authority  conferred  upon  him  by 
the  Washington  Protocol  and  the  Supplementary 
Agreement  of  July  20,  1922,  and  because  his  arbitral 
award  takes  the  place  of  and  is  as  binding  upon  Chile 
and  Peru  as  would  be  a  special  protocol  if  one  had  been 
negotiated  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Ar- 
ticle III. 

In  considering  this  condition  it  is  not  the  purpose  to 
refer  again  to  the  correspondence  and  negotiations 
which  in  the  past  have  taken  place  between  Chile  and 
Peru  as  to  the  terms  and  time  of  payment  of  the  ten 
millions.  They  have  already  been  touched  upon  in  con- 
sidering the  First  Question.  While  Chile  asserts  that 
the  positions,  which  she  previously  assumed  in  regard 
to  the  terms  and  time  of  payment,  were  reasonable 
and  justified  in  the  circumstances  and  might  be  urged 
with  propriety  in  the  present  case  as  conditions  which 
should  be  laid  down  by  the  Arbitrator,  it  seems  more 
advisable  to  suggest  new  terms  rather  than  to  reopen 
a  discussion  of  the  subject  and  to  repeat  arguments 
which  were  advanced  while  the  negotiations  were  in 
progress. 


The  Second  Question.  155 

To  the  end,  therefore,  of  avoiding  further  contro- 
versy and  the  tedious  process  of  reviewing  the  argu- 
ments previously  advanced,  and  also  of  providing  a 
simple  formula  for  the  payment  of  the  sum,  which  the 
successful  party  in  the  plebiscite  is  obligated  to  paiy  to 
the  other  party,  Chile  respectfully  requests  the  Arbi- 
trator to  consider  the  following  suggested  condition 
as  practical  and  fair  to  both  parties. 

The  suggestion  of  Chile  is : 

(1)  That  a  financial  institution  be  selected  and  named 
by  the  Arbitrator  as  the  official  depository  of  a  sum 
to  be  known  as  the  "Tacna-Arica  Fund;" 

(2)  That  prior  to  the  constitution  and  assembling  of 
a  plebiscitary  commission,  if  one  is  decided  upon,  Chile 
shall  deposit  with  the  official  depository  the  sum  of  ten 
millions  of  Chilean  silver  pesos,  and  that  Peru  shall 
also  deposit  with  such  depository  the  sum  of  ten  mil- 
lions of  Peruvian  soles  of  equal  weight  and  fineness, 
which  deposits  shall  constitute  the  so-called  "Tacna- 
Arica  Fund;" 

(3)  That,  after  the  plebiscite  has  been  held  and  the 
result  thereof  officially  proclaimed,  and  upon  the  pre- 
sentation of  a  certified  copy  of  the  result  and  of  a 
formal  document  signed  by  a  majority  of  the  members 
of  the  Plebiscitary  Commission  declaring  which  coun- 
try is  defeated  in  the  plebiscite  and  by  reason  of  such 
defeat  entitled  to  receive  the  ten  millions,  the  official 
depository  shall  forthwith,  on  such  authority,  deliver 
the  entire  ' ' Tacna-Arica  Fund"  to  the  properly  ac- 
credited officer  of  such  country,  who  shall  in  his  cre- 
dentials be  empowered  to  receive  the  same  and  to  re- 
ceipt therefor  on  behalf  of  his  Government;  and 

(4)  That  upon  the  proclamation  and  promulgation 
of  the  result  of  the  plebiscite  and  the  issuance  of  the 
formal  document  for  presentation  to  the  official  de- 


156  The  Case  of  Chile. 

pository  holding  the  ' ' Tacna-Arica  Fund,"  the  title 
to  the  permanent  dominion  and  sovereignty  of  the  ter- 
ritory comprising  Tacna  and  Arica  shall  be  vested 
permanently  in  the  nation  successful  in  the  plebiscite, 
which  shall  forthwith  assume  actual  possession  under 
such  title. 

In  the  event  that  the  Arbitrator  does  not  approve  the 
foregoing  suggestion  as  to  the  terms  and  time  of  pay- 
ment of  the  ten  millions  provided  for  in  Article  III  of 
the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  Chile  respectfully  directs  his  at- 
tention to  Articles  XV  and  XVI  of  the  Billinghurst- 
Latorre  Protocol  of  1898  as  suitable  bases  for  the 
formulation  of  the  condition  relative  to  the  terms  and 
time  of  payment  of  the  moneys  due  to  the  party  unsuc- 
cessful in  the  plebiscite.  The  articles  referred  to  read 
as  follows: 

"Article  XV.  The  indemnity  of  ten  million 
pesos  prescribed  by  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of 
October  20,  1883,  will  be  paid  by  the  country  that 
shall  become  the  owner  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna 
and  Arica  on  the  following  terms :  one  million 
within  the  period  of  ten  days,  reckoned  from  the 
proclamation  of  the  general  result  of  the  plebi- 
scite; another  million  within  the  following  year; 
and  two  millions  at  the  end  of  each  year  of  the  sub- 
sequent four  years. 

"The  sums  referred  to  will  be  paid  in  Peruvian 
silver  soles  or  in  Chilean  silver  coin  of  the  kind 
that  circulated  at  the  time  when  the  Treaty  of 
October  20,  1883,  was  signed. 

"Article  XVI.  The  total  products  of  the  cus- 
tom-house at  Arica  are  assigned  for  the  payment 
of  the  indemnity  mentioned  in  the  preceding  ar- 
ticle." (Appendix,  p.  146.) 

In  order  to  meet  any  possible  contingency  which  may 
arise,  as  a  consequence  of  the  result  of  the  plebiscite, 


The 'Second  Question.  157 

Chile  respectfully  calls  the  Arbitrator's  attention  to  a 
question  which  would  be  presented  in  the  event  that 
Peru  should  obtain  a  recession  of  Tacna  and  Arica  by 
virtue  of  the  plebiscite  resulting  in  her  favor. 

Chile  has  during  the  past  forty  years  expended  large 
sums  of  money  in  Tacna  and  Arica  in  railway  and  road 
construction,  irrigation  systems,  sanitation,  port  facili- 
ties, public  buildings,  schools  and  other  public  works 
and  utilities.  As  a  matter  of  justice,  such  expenditures 
for  permanent  public  improvements  should  be  reim- 
bursed to  the  ceding  nation. 

A  condition  precedent  to  the  vesting  of  the  title  to 
the  territory  in  Peru,  in  the  event  that  the  plebiscite 
declares  in  her  favor,  should  be  that  Peru  reimburse 
or  arrange  to  reimburse  Chile  for  the  expenditures 
which  she  has  made  for  such  improvements. 

In  order  to  determine  the  value  of  the  public  im- 
provements, for  which  Peru  ought  to  pay,  provided  it 
succeeds  in  the  plebiscite,  Chile  proposes  as  a  practical 
method,  that  a  Chilean-Peruvian  Commission  of  Ex- 
perts, with  a  neutral  umpire,  be  established  immedi- 
ately after  the  formal  announcement  that  the  result  of 
the  plebiscite  is  favorable  to  Peru,  which  Commission 
shall  be  empowered  to  fix  the  valuation  of  such  public 
properties  now  owned  by  Chile  in  Tacna  and  Arica, 
and  also  the  terms  of  payment  by  Peru  of  the  sum  so 
found,  the  decision  of  the  Commission  as  to  valuation 
and  as  to  terms  of  payment  to  be  final. 

Furthermore,  Chile  considers  that  all  expenses  in- 
curred in  holding  the  plebiscite  should  be  borne  equally 
by  Chile  and  Peru,  and  that  a  provision  to  this  effect 
should  be  a  condition  of  carrying  out  the  plebiscite. 
Chile,  therefore,  respectfully  requests  that  such  a  con- 
dition be  included  in  the  determination  of  the  Arbi- 
trator as  to  the  conditions  provided  in  Clause  Third  of 
the  Supplementary  Agreement  of  July  20,  1922. 


158  The  Case  of  Chile. 

PAST  IV. 

The  Thied  Question:  Tarata  and  Chilcaya. 

Chile  believes,  as  has  been  stated,  that  regardless  of 
the  decision  of  the  Arbitrator  as  to  the  holding  of  a 
plebiscite,  it  would  be  proper  for  him  to  decide  the  dis- 
puted questions  as  to  the  eastern  portion  of  the  north- 
ern and  southern  boundaries  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  de- 
nominated in  Article  Fifth  of  the  Supplementary 
Agreement  of  July  20,  1922,  as  "the  pending  claims 
relative  to  Tarata  and  Chilcaya. "  These  questions 
arise  out  of  the  different  interpretations  placed  by 
Chile  and  Peru  upon  the  language  of  Article  III  of  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon  describing  the  boundaries  of  Tacna 
and  Arica. 

It  is  recognized  that  these  boundary  questions  are 
of  a  technical  geographic  nature  and  will  probably  re- 
quire for  their  determination  by  the  Arbitrator  an  ex- 
amination by  an  expert  under  his  direction.  Chile, 
therefore,  respectfully  suggests  that  a  Special  Com- 
missioner be  appointed  by  the  Arbitrator  for  the  pur- 
pose of  making  an  actual  investigation  on  the  ground, 
and  collecting  the  necessary  data,  to  aid  the  Arbitrator 
in  determining  these  boundary  questions,  and  that  the 
Arbitrator's  decision  upon  this  question  be  delayed 
until  he  has  received' the  report  of  the  Special  Commis- 
sioner though  such  delay  should  not  postpone  the  de- 
livery of  an  arbitral  award  as  to  the  other  questions 
submitted  to  him.  It  is  also  suggested  that  the  costs 
of  this  examination  by  the  Special  Commissioner  be 
defrayed  equally  by  Chile  and  Peru. 

As  these  two  boundary  questions  relating  to  the 
eastern  part  of  the  northern  boundary  of  Tacna,  and 
the  eastern  part  of  the  southern  boundary  of  Arica 
are  distinct  matters,  they  will  be  discussed  separately 
in  the  following  pages,  under  the  heading — Tarata  and 
Chilcaya. 


The  Thikd  Question.  159 

1.  Tarata. 

Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  states  that  the 
territory  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica  is — 

"bounded  on  the  north  by  the  Eiver  Sama  from 
its  source  in  the  Cordilleras  on  the  frontier  of 
Bolivia  to  its  mouth  at  the  sea." 

The  main  course  of  the  Eiver  Sama  from  the  junc- 
tion of  the  River  Tala  and  the  River  Chaspaya  to  the 
mouth  of  the  Sama  is  undisputed.  .From  this  junction 
eastward,  it  is  a  question  which  tributary  of  the  Sama 
is  to  be  regarded  as  the  main  channel  of  that  river  and 
consequently  the  boundary  between  Tacna  and  Peru. 

The  claims  of  the  two  countries  in  regard  to  this 
boundary  as  stated  in  the  diplomatic  correspondence, 
win  be  briefly  reviewed. 

The  question  as  to  the  location  of  the  boundary  first 
arose  as  a  result  of  a  tax  imposed  upon  the  inhabitants 
of  Tarata  by  the  Governor  of  Tacna.  In  a  note  of 
November  10,  1884,  the  Peruvian  Minister  to  Chile 
called  the  matter  of  this  tax  to  the  attention  of  the 
Chilean  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  pointing  out 
that  Tarata  is  not  included  as  a  part  of  the  province  of 
Tacna  by  Article  III  which  fixes  the  River  Sama  as  the 
northern  boundary  line  of  that  province,  and  asking, 
therefore,  for  a  revocation  of  the  tax  decree  and  a  re- 
turn of  the  tax  collected.  (Appendix,  p.  3.) 

The  Chilean  Government  replied  on  November  13, 
1884,  that  it  did  not  possess  accurate  maps  of  the  ter- 
ritory in  question  and  that  the  Governor  of  Tacna  had 
been  directed  to  forward  to  the  Government  all  the 
facts  in  the  case.  (Appendix,  pp.  4-5.) 

On  January  20,  1885,  the  Chilean  Government  issued 
a  decree  creating  the  subdelegation  of  Tarata  in  the 


160  The  Case  of  Chile. 

province  of  Tacna  and  fixing  as  the  northern  boundary 
of  Tarata  "The  Chaspaya  River  and  ravine,  which  is 
the  continuation  of  the  River  Sama. ' ' 

A  diplomatic  protest  was  made  to  this  decree  by 
Peru  on  February  16,  1885.  In  order  to  avoid  further 
difficulties  Chile  designated  the  Ticalaco  River  as  the 
limit  of  occupation  and  this  river  has  remained  the 
administrative  boundary  to  the  present  day,  although 
Chile  has  never  abandoned  her  claim  that  the  Chas- 
paya was  the  true  boundary  laid  down  in  the  Treaty  of 
Ancon.  (Appendix,. pp.  520;  542.) 

The  Chilean  Minister  to  Peru,  Sefior  Novoa,  on 
March  17,  1886,  proposed  to  the  Government  of  Peru 
that  the  boundary  in  dispute  be  fixed  by  a  joint  com- 
mission of  experts.    He  said: 

"To  offer  Your  Excellency  an  unequivocal  proof 
that  it  desires  to  solve  all  difficulties,  my  Govern- 
ment proposes  a  means  of  simple  and  correct  so- 
lution, that  is,  that  a  commission  of  experts,  one 
appointed  by  Chile  and  another  by  Peru,  shall 
come  together  and  study  the  data  that  they  may 
deem  necessary  by  inspecting  the  course  of  the 
Sama  River  from  its  sources  to  its  outlet.  The 
boundary  line  thus  fixed,  in  a  clear  and  unequivo- 
cal manner,  a  friendly  and  definite  solution  will 
have  been  reached,  and  all  doubts  will  be  settled. ' ' 
(signed)  Jovino  Novoa.    (Appendix,  p.  560.) 

The  Peruvian  Government,  on  April  2,  1886,  declined 
this  proposal,  saying: 

"The  commission  which  Your  Excellency  pro- 
poses, besides  being  liable  to  incur  in  an  error 
because  of  the  lack  of  exactness  of  Article  III  of 
the  Treaty  in  speaking  of  the  Sama  River,  also 
has  the  disadvantage  that  if  the  opinions  of  the 
two  commissioners  do  not  concur,  it  will  be  difficult 
to  adjust  this  difference."  (Appendix,  p.  560.) 


The  Third  Question.  161 

In  a  despatch  of  July  14,  1886,  the  Peruvian  Consul 
at  Iquique,  Guillermo  E.  Billinghurst,  who  was  in 
1898  Vice-President  and  later  President  of  Peru, 
reported  that  the  Government  of  Chile  had  taken 
the  River  Tarata,  which  is  only  a  tributary, 
as  the  continuation  of  the  River  Sama,  thus  add- 
ing the  districts  of  Tarata,  Tarucachi  and  Estique 
to  the  territory  of  Tacna,  instead  of  taking  the  River 
Estique  as  the  continuation  of  the  River  Sama.  He 
states  that  the  River  Estique  rises  in  the  mountains 
bordering  upon  Bolivia  called  Great  and  Small  Barr- 
oso — mountains  that  have  an  elevation  exceeding 
20,000  feet,  and  after  it  meets  the  River  Tarata  bears 
the  name  Sama  thence  to  the  sea.    He  adds : 

"The  volume  of  water  of  the  Estique  River,  its 
course,  the  hydrographic  system  it  obeys  and  the 
fact  that  it  has  its  source  in  the  highest  Cordilleras 
of  the  Bolivian  frontier  in  that  section  of  the  coun- 
try's geography,  demonstrate,  clearly  and  con- 
vincingly, that  that  river,  and  no  other,  is  the 
source  of  the  river  that  waters  the  valley  of  Sama 
and  that  empties  in  the  ocean. 

1  *  The  Tarata  River,  the  fanciful  boundary  fixed 
by  Chile,  is  a  river  with  a  much  inferior  volume  of 
water;  that  river  has  its  source  in  the  heights 
of  that  name  that  rise  above  the  sea  some  15,000 
feet  and  that  are  located  in  the  northern  extremity 
of  the  province  of  Tarata. ' ' 

He  concludes  by  stating  that : 

"the  strict  and  only  acceptable  interpretation  of 
Article  III  of  the  Treaty,  would  leave  within 
Chile's  jurisdiction  only  the  district  of  Estique, 
the  population  of  which  is  about  700  inhabitant s." 
(Appendix,  p.  9.) 


162  The  Case  of  Chile. 

On  October  13,  1886,  the  Peruvian  Minister,  Senor 
Elias,  made  a  formal  request  of  the  Chilean  Govern- 
ment  for  the  return  of  the  districts  of  the  province  of 
Tarata  which  had  been,  he  asserted,  occupied  by 
Chilean  forces  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  the  Govern- 
ment of  Chile  had  fallen  into  an  error  in  taking  the 
Tarata  tributary,  as  the  continuation  of  the  River 
Sama.  (Appendix,  p.  11.) 

This  request  was  repeated  on  March  5,  1887,  when 
a  special  memorandum  and  map  on  the  subject  were 
laid  before  the  Foreign  Office  of  Chile  in  support  of 
the  request.  The  description  in  the  memorandum  of 
the  Estique  and  Tarata  Rivers  follows  in  general  that 
of  the  Billinghurst  report  above  mentioned.  (Appen- 
dix, p.  13.) 

On  April  14,  1887,  the  Chilean  Government  replied 
to  the  request  of  the  Peruvian  Minister  to  the  effect 
that  a  study  had  been  made  of  the  memorandum  and 
map  submitted  to  it,  and  that,  the  Government  was 
persuaded  that  the  question  involved  was  a  geographi- 
cal one  calling  for  exact  topographic  knowledge  of  the 
region.  Therefore,  it  again  proposed  that  a  Chilean- 
Peruvian  commission  of  experts  be  appointed  and  sent 
to  the  points  in  question  for  the  purpose  of  investiga- 
ting and  of  fixing,  in  accordance  with  scientific  princi- 
ples, the  true  source  and  course  of  the  River  Sama,  for 
the  effects  contemplated  in  the  Treaty  of  1883.  (Appen- 
dix, p.  17.) 

Again  in  1890,  although  Peru  had  not  replied  to  the 
last  Chilean  proposal  for  a  joint  commission  of  ex- 
perts, the  Peruvian  Minister,  in  connection  with  legis- 
lation then  pending  in  the  Chilean  Congress,  which  had 
to  do  with  the  organization  of  departments  in  the  area 
over  which  Chile  held  dominion  and  sovereignty,  called 
the  attention  of  the  Chilean  Government  to  what  he 


The  Third  Question.  163 

termed  the  unwarranted  occupation  of  a  part  of  Ta- 
rata.  (Appendix,  pp.  21;  562.) 

Nevertheless  the  Chilean  Government  maintained 
its  position,  and  finally,  on  October  1,  1890,  the  Peru- 
vian Government  declined  to  participate  in  the  pro- 
posed joint  commission.  (Appendix ,  p.  562.)  In  a  cir- 
cular of  September  20,  1921,  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs  of  Peru  referred  to  this  action  of  his  Govern- 
ment as  follows : 

"My  Government  which  knew  this  perfectly 
since  long  ago,  and  which  feared  to  further  the 
policy  of  calculated  delay  that  Chile  pursued  in 
this  affair,  refused  to  concur  in  the  formation  of 
the  proposed  commission  insinuating  that  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Chile  should  obtain  alone  the  infor- 
mation which  it  lacked  to  resolve  the  just  Peru- 
vian reclamation.  This  insinuation  was  accepted 
by  the  Chilean  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations,  on 
October  23,  1890,  but  never  was  put  into  practice 
for  the  specious  reasons  given  fifty  days  later. m 
( Appendix ,  pp.  527;  562.) 

In  the  Billinghurst-Latorre  Protocol  of  1898,  it  is 
stipulated  that  one  of  the  registration  boards  should 
function  in  the  town  of  Tarata,  and  it  added : 

"Article  XIV.  The  fact  that  the  registration 
and  receiving  committees  mentioned  in  the  fore- 


i  In  his  communication  of  December  20,  1921,  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs  of  Chile,  Ernesto  Barros,  answered  this  statement  as  follows: 

"The  capricious  statement  that  Chile  never  carried  out  the  inves- 
tigation is  so  evidently  false,  that  proofs  to  the  contrary  are  almost 
unnecessary;  it  would  be  sufficient  to  exhibit  all  the  maps  and  docu- 
ments which  gwe  evidence  as  to  the  work  of  Chilean  geographers. 

"We  can  cite  among  many  others,  the  reports  of  the  engineer 
Sr.  Bertrand,  Director  of  the  Boundary  Office,  respecting  the  fron- 
tiers with  Bolivia  and  with  Peru;  the  reports  of  the  engineers  who 
worked  in  the  Land  Survey  Office  and,  lastly,  the  large  map  of  Chile 
published  in  1910  by  this  same  office.' '   (Appendix,  p.  563.) 


164  The  Case  of  Chile. 

going  articles  function  in  Tarata  does  not  imply 
a  renouncement  on  the  part  of  Peru  of  the  pend- 
ing claim  in  respect  of  a  part  of  that  region,  al- 
though this  does  not  signify  a  design  of  claiming 
any  indemnity  for  the  time  that  Chile  has  occu- 
pied it."  {Appendix,  p.  146.) 

It  is  to  be  noted  that,  up  to  the  date  of  this  protocol, 
the  Peruvian  claim  has  been  based  exclusively  upon 
the  question  as  to  which  one  of  the  tributaries  of  the 
River  Sama  complied  with  the  condition  of  the  Treaty 
of  being  the  continuation  of  the  boundary  river  to  the 
mountains  bordering  upon  Bolivia.  Peruvian  states- 
men and  diplomats  had  advocated  the  River  Estique 
line,  thus  admitting,  some  expressly  and  others  tacitly, 
that  a  part  of  the  old  Peruvian  province  of  Tarata  had 
been  placed  in  Chile's  possession  by  the  Treaty  stipu- 
lations. 

On  May  26,  1901,  in  a  circular  to  foreign  Govern- 
ments in  regard  to  the  Tacna-Arica  Question,  the 
Government  of  Peru  stated: 

"  there  was  incorporated  in  the  territory,  subject 
to  the  temporary  occupation  of  Chile,  a  part  of  the 
province  of  Tarata,  adjoining  Tacna,  with  its 
towns  and  villages  situated  north  of  the  Sama 
River,  which  is  the  boundary  pointed  out  in  Arti- 
cle III. 

"In  order  to  explain  the  transgression  it  was 
shown  that  the  ravine  by  the  same  name  did  not 
belong  to  the  real  Sama  River,  but  to  another 
farther  north,  which  the  demarcation  established 
by  Peruvian  law,  which  must  be  applied  solely  in 
this  case,  left  very  far  from  the  territory  given 
up  to  the  ten  year's  occupation. ' '  (Appendix  p. 
261.) 

In  the  same  document  Peru  again  demanded  that  the 
occupied  part  of  Tarata  be  returned  to  her. 


The  Thied  Question.  165 

When  Chile  and  Bolivia  in  the  Treaty  of  1904  fixed 
the  boundary  between  the  latter  country  and  the  terri- 
tory possessed  by  the  former  by  virtue  of  Article  III 
of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  the  Peruvian  Government 
through  its  Minister,  Senor  Prado,  saw  fit  to  notify 
Chile,  on  February  18,  1905,  that  such  demarcation 
would  not  be  recognized  by  Peru,  as  it  referred  to  "a 
territory  that,  by  its  political  and  geographical  limits, 
constituted  the  province  of  Tarata,  to  which  the  Treaty 
of  Ancon  did  not  in  any  manner  apply.' '  (Appendix 
p.  347.) 

Thus  Peru  abandoned  its  contention  that  a  part  of 
Tarata  was  included  in  the  territory  that  had  been 
ceded  to  Chile  by  Article  III,  in  order  to  adopt  a  new 
theory,  namely  that  the  political  boundaries  that  were 
in  effect  so  far  as  they  affected  Peru's  domestic  ad- 
ministration before  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  were  control- 
ling; and  that  since  the  Treaty  does  not  mention  Ta- 
rata, no  part  of  Tarata  is  included  in  the  surrendered 
territory.  It  should  be  noted  in  connection  with  this 
theory  that  the  Treaty  mentions  Tacna,  so  that  Chile 
might  argue,  on  the  same  principle  and  with  the  same 
force,  that  the  districts  of  Ilabaya,  Sama,  and  Locumba 
of  the  old  province  of  Tacna,  were  included  in  the  ces- 
sion. (Appendix,  p.  347.) 

In  1911,  Peru  protested  against  the  formation  by  the 
Chilean  Government  of  the  occupied  Tarata  districts 
into  a  department  of  the  same  rank  as  the  depart- 
ments of  Tacna  and  Arica.  (Appendix,  p.  556.) 

Subsequently  in  a  circular  note  of  September  20, 
1921,  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Peru  pro- 
tested against  the  reduction  of  Tarata  from  the  rank 
of  a  department  to  a  subdelegation  of  the  department 
of  Tacna,  just  as  she  had  protested  against  its  eleva- 
tion to  a  department.  In  this  protest  the  Minister  dis- 
cussed the  question  of  boundary  as  follows : 


166  The  Case  of  Chile. 

"As  it  is  clearly  deduced  from  the  terms  of- 
that  Article  III,  only  the  two  Peruvian  provinces 
of  Tacna  and  Arica,  bounded  by  the  Sama  River, 
passed  into  the  temporary  possession  of  Chile. 
That  this  was  so,  is  proven  by  the  significant  fact 
that  one  of  the  first  acts  of  the  Peruvian  Govern- 
ment of  General  Iglesias,  who  negotiated  and 
signed  the  Treaty  with  Chile,  was  to  proclaim  the 
law  of  March  31,  1884,  three  days  after  the  ratifi- 
cations of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  were  exchanged,  to 
create  the  department  of  Moquegua,  in  which  the 
province  of  Tarata  was  included,  '  whose  capital, 
it  stated,  shall  be  the  town  of  that  same  name 
(since  then  and  until  now  occupied  by  Chile)  and 
shall  include  the  districts  of  which  it  consists  at 
present  with  their  same  capitals ; '  this  law  is  the 
authentic  interpretation  of  what  the  Treaty  of 
Peace  prescribed  about  the  boundary  line  of  the 
Sama  River,  as  it  was  proclaimed  immediately 
after  the  perfecting  of  the  said  Treaty,  by  one  of 
the  parties  to  it,  and  without  the  least  attention 
thereto  on  the  part  of  the  Chilean  Government. 
This  law  having  been  abrogated  in  October  25, 
1886,  together  with  all  the  internal  governmental 
acts  of  the  Government  of  General  Iglesias,  was 
substituted  by  that  of  October  12  of  the  same  year, 
which  kept  the  same  interpretation  of  two  and 
half  years  before,  respecting  Tarata.  *  *  * 

"According  to  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of 
Peace,  Chile  must  occupy  only  the  territory  of  the 
Peruvian  province  of  Arica  and  that  part  of  Tacna 
to  the  south  of  the  Sama  River ;  therefore,  she  did 
not  have  any  right  to  retain  any  part  of  the  prov- 
ince of  Tarata,  all  of  it  situated  to  the  north 
of  that  river,  with  an  area  of  4979  square  kilo- 
metres, and  that  was  not  mentioned  even,  by  the 
Treaty,  which  fixed  the  northern  limits  of  the  terri- 
tory that  would  continue  to  be  occupied  in  the 
province  of  Tacna,  expressing  that  it  was  the 
Sama  River,  from  its  source  in  the  mountains 
limiting  with  Bolivia  to  its  outlet  into  the  sea. 


The  Thied  Question.  167 

Thus  the  territories,  the  occupation  of  which  by 
Chile  for  a  period  of  ten  years  was  consented  to 
by  Peru,  were  set  out  doubly;  by  the  denomina- 
tions of  the  Peruvian  territorial  demarcation, 
which  upon  expressly  including  the  provinces  of 
Tacna  and  Arica,  excluded  tacitly  but  undoubtedly, 
the  territories  of  the  province  of  Tarata,  which 
was  not  mentioned,  and  by  the  fixing  of  the  Sama 
River  as  the  provisional  border,  thus  excluding 
implicitly  the  entire  zone  that  extended  to  the 
north  of  that  river,  from  its  true  source  down  to 
the  sea.  If,  then,  any  doubt  could  be  possible,  and 
honestly  it  could  not  be,  about  the  course  of  the 
Sama,  all  that  it  was  necessary  to  do  was  to  appeal 
to  the  prompt  resort  of  establishing  what  the  ter- 
ritorial comprisal  was,  according  to  the  Peruvian 
laws  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica. ? '  (Ap- 
pendix, pp.  521,  522.) 

On  December  20,  1921,  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs  of  Chile,  Senor  Ernesto  Barros,  made  the  fol- 
lowing reply : 

"The  circular  note  of  September  20  is  devoted 
wholly  to  proving  that  Chile  occupies  that  terri- 
tory unlawfully. 

"We  have  seen  already  that  Peru  refused  to 
appoint  a  commission  of  experts  to  study  the 
frontier  line;  that  it  insinuated  afterwards  to  my 
Government  that  the  latter  should  make,  on  its 
own  account,  the  investigations  necessary,  and 
lastly,  that  when  Chilean  engineers  went  to  the 
limiting  mountains  to  carry  out  topographic 
studies,  the  Peruvian  forces  placed  all  sorts  of  ob- 
stacles in  their  way  and  prevented  them  from 
crossing  the  de  facto  frontier  which  they  them- 
selves had  established,  and  which  was  tolerated  by 
the'  Chilean  Government  in  order  to  prevent 
greater  difficulties."  (Appendix,  p.  565.) 


168  The  Case  of  Chile. 

The  question,  therefore,  resolves  itself  to  this: 
Which  tributary  of  the  River  Sama  above  the  junction 
of  the  Tala  and  Chaspaya  is  the  true  boundary  of  Tac- 
na.  Furthermore,  in  answering  this  question  it  should 
be  noted  that,  according  to  the  reports  of  Chilean  engi- 
neers, none  of  the  tributaries  of  the  River  Sama  have 
their  source  "in  the  Cordillera  on  tlie  frontier  of  Bo- 
livia/ !  In  view  of  these  reports,  a  further  question 
arises  as  to  the  location  of  the  boundary  between  the 
head  of  the  " River  Sama"  and  the  " Cordillera  on  the 
frontier  of  Bolivia." 

The  bases  for  the  foregoing  statements  on  the  part 
of  Chile  are  the  following : 

In  the  first  place,  the  strategic  importance  of  this 
territory  was  in  the  minds  of  the  negotiators  of  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon  when  they  agreed  upon  the  River 
Sama  as  the  boundary  laid  down  in  Article  III.  In  the 
war,  which  was  brought  to  an  end  by  the  Treaty  of 
Ancon,  Chilean  military  experience  in  this  region 
showed  clearly  that  this  mountainous  district  was  the 
resort  for  irregular  forces  and  guerilla  bands  of  the 
enemy  which  more  than  once  threatened  the  city  of 
Tacna.  It  was  found  necessary  at  that  time  to  occupy 
the  entire  district  in  order  to  prevent  the  use  of  it  as 
a  rendezvous  for  guerilla  chieftains  and  their  forces. 
(Appendix,  p.  547.) 

Colonel  Arriagada  then  in  command  of  the  Chilean 
forces  in  this  region  fixed  upon  the  River  Chaspaya 
as  the  appropriate  military  line.  Referring  to  this  oc- 
cupation, the  Governor  of  Tacna  states  in  a  memoran- 
dum of  November  5, 1897,  as  follows : 

"It  was  then  in  1883-1884  that  Colonel  Ricardo 
Silva  Arriagada  fixed  the  general  boundaries  of 
the  Province  of  Tacna  on  the  north,  occupying 


The  Third  Question.  169 

Ticalaco,  Sitajara  and  Yabroco,  and  designating 
as  the  boundary  line  the  course  of  the  River  Chas- 
paya  or  Salado,  from  its  rise  in  the  Yabroco 
Mountains,  the  nearest  to  the  Peruvian-Bolivian 
border.' ' 

Moreover,  Consul  Billinghurst,  in  his  report  of  July 
14,  1886,  referred  to  above,  points  out  the  "geographic 
importance  and  strategic  value  of  Tarata."  (Appendix 
P.  7.) 

It  is  said  that  the  valley  of  Tacna  cannot  be  invaded 
by  an  enemy  army  so  long  as  a  division  of  troops  oc- 
cupies Tarata  and  holds  the  line  of  the  River  Sama. 
If  Tarata  were  in  the  hands  of  enemy  forces  capable 
of  using  it  as  a  base  of  operations,  it  would  be  impos- 
sible to  protect  the  railroad  from  Arica  to  La  Paz 
from  surprise  attacks.  (Appendix,  p.  571.)  It  was  on 
account  of  its  strategic  importance  that  Chile  origi- 
nally demanded  that  the  River  Locumba  (farther 
north  than  the  Sama)  be  the  northern  boundary  of  the 
territory  to  be  assigned  to  her  in  the  Treaty  of  Peace. 
(Appendix,  p.  557.) 

It  appears  also  that  the  foregoing  reasons  served  as 
the  basis  for  the  description  of  the  northern  boundary 
of  Tacna  as  set  forth  in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  it  being 
the  desire  of  Chile  to  control  the  entire  mountain  re- 
gion which  is  intersected  by  the  deep  valleys  or  ravines 
of  the  tributaries  of  the  River  Sama.  After  the 
Treaty  of  Peace,  however,  the  Chilean  troops  aban- 
doned the  more  northern  part  of  this  district  and  es- 
tablished the  line  of  military  occupation,  the  strategic 
line  of  defense,  along  the  River  Tacalaco,  although 
Chile  never  gave  up  her  contention  that  the  Chaspaya 
was  the  true  boundary  described  in  Article  III. 

In  the  second  place,  the  old  provincial  boundary  be- 
tween Tarata  and  Tacna  established  by  Peru  was  not 


170  The  Case  of  Chile. 

the  boundary  laid  down  in  Article  III,  and,  therefore, 
the  provincial  boundary  furnishes  no  ground  for  a 
territorial  claim  under  that  Article. 

After  the  Treaty  of  Peace,  the  Peruvian  Government 
in  its  correspondence  with  Chile  claimed  that  the 
Eiver  Estique  was  the  continuation  of  the  River  Sama 
and  should  be  regarded  as  the  boundary  line  under 
Article  III.  As  will  be  seen  from  the  maps,  the  River 
Estique  does  not  follow  the  line  between  Tarata  and 
Tacna  but  runs  considerably  to  the  north  of  that  line. 
This  appears  also  to  have  been  the  opinion  of  Consul 
Billinghurst,  subsequently  President  of  Peru.  The 
position  of  Chile,  as  indicated  above,  is  that  the  old 
provinical  boundary  was  not  followed  in  Article  III 
and  ought  not  be  followed  in  the  present  settlement  of 
the  international  frontiers.* 

It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  the  ancient  boundary  be- 
tween Tarata  and  Tacna  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  the 
boundary  laid  down  in  Article  III. 

In  the  third  place,  the  Peruvian  geographers  of  the 
period  declared  that  the  valley  of  the  Sama  River  was 
continued  in  that  of  the  Chaspaya  tributary. 

The  geographer,  Antonio  Raimondi,  in  his  work  en- 
titled "Peru,"  which  was  published  by  the  Peruvian 
Government  in  1869,  states : 

"I  continued  my  journey  along  the  Cordilleria 
(Andes)  until  I  came  to  the  Tutupaca  Volcano, 
and  then  I  returned  to  Candarave,  from  where  I 
went  to  the  town  of  Ticaco  in  order  to  arrive  at 
the  source  of  the  Sama  ravine,  which  is  south  of 
that  of  Locumba."  (Vol  I,  p.  171.) 


*The  Tarata-Tacna  boundary  changed  several  times  before  the  war, 
and  even  after  the  signing  of  the  peace  by  the  creation  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  Moquegua  which  includes  "Free  Tacna."   (Appendix,  p.  556.) 


The  Third  Question.  171 

It  appears  from  the  maps  that  Raimondi,  in  coming 
from  Candarave  in  search  of  the  Sama  ravine,  mnst 
have  descended  along  the  Chaspaya.  Besides,  he  does 
not  mention  any  other  tributary  of  the  Sama. 

The  Peruvian  Boundary  Commission  of  1878,  of 
which  the  geographer,  Felipe  Paz  Soldan  was  the 
head,  made  a  report  on  the  southern  boundary  of 
Tarata  in  which,  in  describing  the  boundary,  he  spoke 
of  the  "confluence  of  the  river  that  flows  down  from 
Tarata  with  the  Chaspaya,  which  farther  on  is  called 
the  Sama." 

The  Peruvian  geographical  dictionary  entitled  "La 
Cronica,"  published  in  Lima  in  1918,  contains  a  ref- 
erence to  Tarata,  as  follows : 

"Tarata.  This  province,  until  the  enactment  of 
the  law  of  November  12,  1874,  was  a  part  of  the 
province  of  Tacna.  The  said  law  made  up  the 
province  of  Tarata  from  some  of  the  districts  of 
Tacua.  The  Treaty  of  Ancon,  in  pointing  to  the 
River  Sama  as  the  boundary  line  between  Peru 
and  Chile  until  the  fate  of  the  captive  provinces 
is  decided,  has  taken  from  our  dominion  a  part  of 
Tarata,  that  is,  the  districts  of  Tarata,  Estique, 
and  Tarucachi."  {p.  437.) 

Turning  now  to  the  boundary  between  the  source  of 
the  River  Sama  and  "the  Cordilleras  on  the  frontier 
of  Bolivia,"  there  is,  as  appears  from  Chilean  scien- 
tific investigations  and  studies,  no  convenient  river 
course  which  might  be  taken  as  the  boundary.  No 
matter  which  one  of  the  tributaries  of  the  River  Sama 
is  followed,  its  rise  will  not  be  found,  it  appears,  in 
the  mountains  that  border  upon  Bolivia.  Between 
those  mountains  and  the  sources  of  these  tributaries 
there  is  a  distance  of  thirty  to  forty-five  miles.    This 


172  The  Case  of  Chile. 

intervening  area  is  occupied  by  the  headwaters  of  the 
Eivers  Mauri  and  Uchusuma  which  flow  southeasterly 
into  Bolivia.  The  headwaters  of  these  two  rivers  are 
separated  from  the  headwaters  of  the  Sama  tributaries 
by  a  range  of  mountains  in  which  both  systems  have 
their  sources.  It  is  necessary,  therefore,  for  the  Arbi- 
trator to  determine  the  northern  boundary  of  Tacna 
in  this  intervening  area  between  the  headwaters  of  the 
Eiver  Sama  and  "the  Cordilleras  on  the  frontier  of 
Bolivia.' ' 

Taking  into  consideration  the  above  stated  facts 
and  others,  the  Chilean  geographer,  Alejandro  Ber- 
trand,  in  the  report  that  he  submitted  to  the  Chilean 
Government  on  September  28,  1903,  regarding  the 
Bolivian  border,  which  report  served  as  a  basis  for  the 
boundary  provisions  of  the  Treaty  of  1904  with  Bolivia, 
suggests,  as  a  solution  for  the  problem  brought  up  by 
the  fact  that  the  River  Sama  does  not  rise  in  the  moun- 
tains bordering  upon  Bolivia,  the  adoption  of  a  line 
that  will  unite  the  source  of  the  Chaspaya  or  of  the 
Ticalaco,  whichever  may  be  found  to  be  the  true  origin 
of  the  Sama,  with  the  intersection  of  the  two  old  Peru- 
vian departments  of  Tacna  and  Puno  at  the  Bolivian 
border.  This  intersection  is  found  at  17°  14'  south 
latitude. 

2.  Chilcaya. 

The  question  of  Chilcaya  relates  only  to  that  part 
of  the  boundary  between  Arica  and  the  Chilean  De- 
partment of  Pisagua  from  the  point  on  the  Camarones 
called  Arepunta  to  the  international  boundary  with 
Bolivia. 

Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  states  that  the 
southern  boundary  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica 
shall  be  "the  ravine  and  river  Camarones." 


The  Third  Question.  173 

The  course  of  this  ravine  is  plainly  marked  out  from 
the  sea  to  a  point  called  Arepunta.  That  part  of  the 
line  has  not  been  called  in  question. 

At  Arepunta,  the  River  Camarones  is  divided  into 
two  tributaries :  One  of  these  comes  from  the  northeast 
and  is  called  the  River  Ajatama,  and  the  other,  coming 
from  the  southeast,  is  called  the  Caritaya.  The  ques- 
tion is  which  of  these  two  tributaries  is  the  true  origin 
of  "the  ravine  and  River  Camarones"  up  to  the  Bo- 
livian border. 

In  these  circumstances  it  was  necessary  for  Chile  to 
determine  a  boundary  for  administrative  and  jurisdic- 
tional purposes.  Accordingly  the  Government  of  Chile 
issued  the  Decrees  of  November  3,  1885,  and  August 
28,  1888,  which  established  the  boundary  between 
Arica  and  Pisag*ua  for  those  purposes.  Peru  pro- 
tested against  these  decrees,  pointing  out  that  they 
caused  certain  villages  which  formerly  were  in  Arica 
to  be  included  in  the  department  of  Pisagua  and  quot- 
ing the  Governor  of  Arica  and  the  Intendant  of  Tacna 
as  opposed  to  such  determination  of  the  boundary. 
(Appendix,  pp.  188,  189.) 

In  1900,  the  Government  of  Chile  commissioned  the 
Director  of  the  Astronomical  Observatory,  Alberto 
Obrecht,  and  the  engineer  Abelardo  Pizarro  to  study 
the  question  and  to  make  a  report  thereon.  This  com- 
mission presented  its  report,  which  was  published  in 
the  Chilean  Official  Bulletin  of  November  29,  1900. 

Upon  the  naming  of  this  commission  Peru  took  oc- 
casion to  remonstrate  against  what  appeared  to  be  an 
ex  parte  determination  of  the  Arica-Pisagua  boundary. 
(pp.  177, 186.)  The  Peruvian  Minister  said: 

"The  aforementioned  boundary  line  is  formed, 
according  to  the  Treaty  of  Peace  of  1883,  by  the 


174  The  Case  of  Chile. 

ravine  and  the  River  Camarones ;  it  separates  the 
territory  of  Tarapaca,  whose  dominion  has  been 
ceded  to  Chile,  from  the  territories  of  Tacna  and 
Arica,  not  ceded  as  to  ownership  and  the  definite 
fate  of  which  is  subject  to  the  contingencies  of  a 
plebiscite.  Said  line,  therefore,  has  an  interna- 
tional character."  (Appendix,  p.  186.) 

On  January  21,  1903,  the  Chilean  Government  or- 
dered the  Director  of  the  Boundary  Office,  Ale- 
jandro Bertrand,  who  had  been  in  charge  of  the  de- 
marcation of  the  boundary  between  Chile  and  Argen- 
tina, to  investigate  the  question  of  the  northern  boun- 
dary of  the  province  of  Tarapaca,  between  the  point 
called  Arepunta  and  the  Bolivian  frontier. 

Bertrand  made  a  profound  study  of  the  question, 
taking  into  consideration  the  historical,  traditional, 
legal,  and  administrative  data,  to  which  he  refers  in 
his  report,  dated  October  1, 1903,  and  arrived  at  the  fol- 
lowing conclusion: 

"In  concluding,  I  have  the  honor  of  informing 
you  that  the  northern  boundary  line  of  the  prov- 
ince of  Tarapaca,  between  Arepunta  and  the  Bo- 
livian border,  that  corresponds,  according  to  the 
investigations  that  I  have  exposed  hereby,  to  the 
Peruvian  interprovincial  dividing  line  at  the  time 
of  the  cession  of  Tarapaca  to  Chile,  is  as  follows : 
The  Ajatama  River  as  far  as  the  point  at  which 
the  Blanco  or  Surasura  Eiver  joins  it,  from  there 
a  straight  line  to  the  old  boundary  line  of  Jan- 
cuma  or  Penas  Blancas,  to  the  water  spring  of 
Lirpo,  to  the  Pucupucune  ranch,  to  the  crest  of  the 
Pelado  Hill  of  Llaretapampa,  the  passing  over 
the  line  of  the  peaks  of  those  of  Chulluncayani 
Viscachitambo,  through  the  pass  of  Chaca,  to 
Herraje  Hill,  to  Castilluma  Hill,  to  Achachamayo 
Hill,  to  Arintica  Hill,  and  to  Puquintica  Hill. 


The  Third  Question.  175 

"This  line  will  be  set  out,  upon  the  ground,  in 
accordance  with  the  outline  indicated  in  the  map 
that  has  been  prepared  by  the  engineers  of  this 
Department,  and  that  I  enclose  in  this  report. 

44  As  this  line  is  founded  chiefly  upon  official 
Peruvian  publications,  such  as  the  census  of  1876, 
the  map  and  pamphlet  regarding  boundaries  by 
Mariano  Felipe  Paz  Soldan,  the  geographical  work 
published  by  Guillermo  E.  Billinghurst,  and  de- 
positions of  the  natives  of  Tarapaca  of  Peruvian 
extraction,  Chile  would  be  justified  fully  in  sus- 
taining it,  in  case  that  Tacna  and  Arica  should  re- 
turn to  Peru  according  to  the  possibility  foreseen 
by  the  Treaty  of  Ancon."  (Appendix,  p.  326.) 

The  boundary  line  from  Arepunta  to  the  frontier  of 
Bolivia  recommended  in  this  report  of  Bertrand  was 
adopted  officially  by  Chile  for  administrative  purposes 
in  the  Decree  of  May  4,  1904.  (Appendix,  p.  328.) 

It  appears  form  this  report,  as  well  as  from  the  Peru- 
vian note  of  November  14,  1900,  that  the  boundary  in 
question  is  the  same  as  the  former  political  boundary 
between  Arica  and  Pisagua  when  these  territories  be- 
longed to  Peru.    On  this  point  Bertrand  says : 

"In  fact,  Article  II  of  the  Treaty  states:  The 
Eepublic  of  Peru  cedes  to  the  Republic  of  Chile, 
perpetually  and  unconditionally,  the  territory  of 
the  littoral  province  of  Tarapaca,  the  boundaries 
of  which  are:  on  the  north,  the  ravine  and  River 
Camarones;  on  the  south,  the  ravine  and  River 
Loa;  on  the  east,  the  Republic  of  Bolivia;  and  the 
west,  the  Pacific  Ocean." 


"The  province  of  Tarapaca  was  ceded  uncon- 
ditionally to  Chile  according  to  the  Treaty  of 
Ancon,  with  the  northern,  southern  and  eastern 
boundaries  that  it  had  under  Peruvian  sov- 
ereignty, whether  or  not  they  are  correctly,  pre- 
cisely, and  completely  expressed  in  the  text  of  the 
said  Treaty.' r  (Appendix,  pp.  283,  285.) 


176  The  Case  of  Chile. 

He  incorporates   the   same  idea  into  his  conclusion 
quoted  above. 

The  Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  in  the  note  of  Novem- 
ber 14,  1900,  alluded  to,  states : 

"Furthermore,  this  line  separated  unalterably 
for  many  years,  within  territory  exclusively  Pe- 
ruvian, the  same  political  circumscriptions  whose 
boundaries  are  now  endeavored  to  be  denned; 
and  in  this  way  the  actual  province  of  Tarapaea 
passed  to  the  power  of  Chile.  My  government,  for 
this  reason,  is  in  very  propitious  condition  to  ap- 
preciate with  certainty  the  origin  and  course  of  it, 
which  constitutes  a  new  and  powerful  reason  not 
to  prescind  from  its  approval."  (Appendix,  pp. 
186-187.) 

It  seems  quite  clear,  therefore,  that  the  two  countries 
are  in  accord  on  the  point  that  the  old  Peruvian  in- 
terprovincial  boundary  is  the  same  as  that  intended 
to  be  laid  down  in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon. 

The  Decree  of  May  4,  1904,  however,  led  to  a  re- 
newed diplomatic  discussion  of  the  boundary  question. 
On  July  16,  1904,  the  Peruvian  Government  made  a 
protest  against  the  Decree,  in  which  it  said: 

"By  the  Treaty  of  Peace  mentioned  there  was 
ceded  to  Chile  the  territory  of  the  '  littoral  pro- 
vince of  Tarapaca';  that  is  to  say,  the  section  of 
Peruvian  territory  known  by  that  name.  It  is 
therefore  indisputable,  and  the  decree  to  which 
I  refer  accepts  it,  that  the  limit  between  Pisa- 
gua  (the  northern  district  of  that  province)  and 
the  province  of  Arica  can  be  none  other  than  the 
one  pointed  out  bv  the  Peruvian  laws  previous 
to  October  20,  1883. 

"Tarapaca,  before  forming  a  separate  territo- 
rial district,  belonged  up  to  1837  to  the  department 
of  Arequipa;  from  this  year  it  came  to  form  a 
part  of  the  littoral  department  of  Tacna;  from 


The  Third  Question.  177 

December  1,  1868,  it  was  raised  to  a  littoral  pro- 
vince, still  having  as  its  boundary  the  ravine  and 
River  Camarones.  In  harmony  with  this  demar- 
cation, the  census  of  1876  pointed  out  as  districts 
belonging  to  the  littoral  province  of  Tarapa6a 
those  districts  of  Iquique,  Pica,  Pisagua,  Tara- 
paca, Camina,  Chiapa,  Sibaya,  and  Mamma,  all 
situated  to  the  south  of  the  Camarones  River,  and 
from  its  principal  affluent  the  Caritaya.  It  re- 
sults, consequently,  that  even  if  that  Treaty  of 
Peace  and  Friendship  of  October  20,  1883,  does 
not  specify  in  detail  lie  points  which  form  the  di- 
viding line  between  the  provinces  of  Tarapaca 
and  Arica,  the  general  terms  which  it  employs, 
being  with  reference  to  the  demarcation  which 
existed  in  conformance  to  Peruvian  laws,  leave 
the  boundary  established  with  sufficient  precision 
because,  since,  the  province  of  Tarapaca  has  been 
separated  from  the  department  of  Tacna  in  order 
to  form  the  littoral  province  which  was  later  on 
ceded  to  Chile,  it  is  clear  that  that  which  expressly 
was  not  included  in  the  segregation  continued  in 
the  principal  section  which  was  the  department  of 
Tacna,  the  province  of  Arica  forming  a  part 
thereof,  according  to  Peruvian  demarcation. 

1 '  From  what  is  explained  above,  it  is  deduced 
that  the  decree  of  your  Government  referred  to, 
has  adopted  as  a  boundary  the  River  of  Ajatama 
and  the  points  which  are  indicated  as  a  contin- 
uation; instead  of  having  taken  the  River  Cari- 
taya and  the  places  which  belonged  to  it  as  a  com- 
plement; thus  segregating  a  section  of  the  pro- 
vince of  Arica  which  belongs  to  it  in  order  to 
incorporate  that  section  into  Tarapaca.' '  (Appen- 
dix, pp.  331-332.) 

This  note  also  refers  to  the  decision  of  the  Court  of 
Appeals  of  Tacna  in  regard  to  the  location  of  the 
borate  fields  of  Chilcaya,  and  to  the  contradictory 
character  of  the  reports  of  Chilean  authorities  as  to 
the  boundary.  (Appendix,  p.  332.) 


178  The  Case  of  Chile. 

These  contentions  upon  the  part  of  Peru  were  re- 
plied to  by  Senor  Bertrand  in  his  report  of  August 
6,  1904  (Appendix,  p.  334),  and  in  the  Chilean  answer 
of  August  12,  1904,  to  the  Peruvian  protest. 

The  Chilean  note  disclaims  any  intention  of  deter- 
mining an  international  boundary  by  the  Decree  of  1904 
which  is  a  measure  of  internal  administration,  and 
quotes  from  the  the  Chilean  note  of  January  19,  1901 
(Appendix,  p.  210),  to  the  same  effect.  The  Chilean 
Government  then  refers  the  Peruvian  Government  to 
the  official  Bertrand  reports  of  1903  and  1904  "in  which 
are  rectified  the  errors"  contained  in  the  Peruvian 
note  of  July  16th.     (Appendix,  p.  344.) 

The  Bertrand  reports  of  1903  and  1904  referred  to 
in  answer  to  the  Peruvian  contentions  are  too  long 
and  detailed  to  be  summarized  here.  The  Arbitrator, 
therefore,  is  respectfully  referred  to  these  reports 
which  are  printed  in  full  in  the  Appendix.  (Appendix, 
pp.  278;  334.) 

In  the  Peruvian  note  of  January  30,  1.901,  it  had 
been  intimated  that  the  borate  mines  of  Chilcaya  influ- 
enced the  location  of  the  boundary  (Appendix,  p.  232) ; 
and  this  intimation  was  revived  by  Senor  Alberto  Salo- 
mon in  his  note  of  December  24,  1921,  in  which  he 
alludes  to  the  borate  deposits  of  Chilcaya  as  the  reason 
why  this  region  was  included  in  the  province  of  Ta- 
rapaca.  (Appendix,  p.  573.)  It  may  be  said  that  this 
charge  was  unwarranted  because  the  borate  deposits 
were  at  the  time  of  the  Decree  of  May  4,  1904,  wholly 
in  the  hands  of  private  grantees.  Some  of  the  con- 
cessions had  been  conferred  by  Bolivian  authorities 
and  others  by  Chilean  authorities.  The  Decree  of 
May  4,  1904,  expressly  declares  that  its  provisions 
would  not  affect  the  rights  previously  acquired  by 
private  parties.    Moreover  Peru  had  been  advised,  on 


The  Third  Question.  179 

January  19,  1901,  in  effect  that  Chile  did  not  intend 
to  give  international  significance  to  its  territorial  de- 
marcation in  this  region  which  was  purely  for  adminis- 
trative purposes.  (Appendix,  p.  215.)  Finally  the  ex- 
port duty  collected  by  the  Chilean  Government  from 
the  borate  deposits  in  that  region  is  so  insignificant 
as  to  make  it  an  unimportant  matter  as  to  whether 
the  deposits  were  in  Chilean  or  foreign  territory,  since 
in  1921  the  Chilcayan  production  of  borate  was  only 
122  tons.     (Anuario  Estadistico  de  Chile,  p.  36.) 

The  question  is  whether  the  River  Ajatama  or  the 
River  Caritaya  is  the  true  continuation  of  ■ l  the  ravine 
and  River  Camarones"  declared  in  Article  III  of  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon  to  be  the  southern  boundary  of  Arica. 
There  is  also  an  intervening  area  between  the  head- 
waters of  either  of  these  tributaries  of  the  Camarones 
and  the  boundary  of  Bolivia  across  which  it  is  a  ques- 
tion where  the  boundary  lies. 

The  bases  for  the  foregoing  statement  on  the  part 
of  Chile  are  to  be  found  in  the  Bertrand  report  of  Oc- 
tober 1,  1903,  which  Chile  officially  adopted  as  her 
own,  and  to  which  she  respectfully  refers  the  Arbi- 
trator for  a  presentation  of  the  geographic  and  other 
data  relating  to  this  question.  This  Chilean  report 
and  the  Peruvian  note  of  November  14,  1900,  appear 
to  agree  that  the  boundary  laid  down  in  Article  III 
should  follow  the  old  boundary  between  Arica  and 
Pisagua  which  was  recognized  when  those  territories 
were  under  the  dominion  of  Peru.  From  this  point 
of  common  agreement  it  ought  to  be  possible  to  estab- 
lish a  boundary  satisfactory  to  both  countries. 

In  dealing  with  the  Tarata  and  Chilcaya  questions, 
Chile  repeats  her  suggestion  that  a  Special  Commis- 
sioner be  named  by  the  Arbitrator  to  investigate  on 
the  ground  and  collect  the  necessary  data  to  enable 
the  latter  to  determine  these  boundary  questions 


J-80  The  Case  of  Chile. 

STATEMENT  IN  CONCLUSION. 

Chile,  in  concluding  her  presentation  of  the  facts 
and  arguments  on  which  she  relies  in  the  arbitration 
instituted  under  the  Protocol  and  Supplementary 
Agreement  entered  into  with  Peru  at  Washington,  on 
July  20,  1922,  respectfully  submits  the  following  ob- 
servations dealing  with  the  various  phases  of  the 
Tacna-Arica  Question  which  it  is  hoped  and  expected 
will  be  finally  laid  to  rest  by  the  decision  of  the  Ar- 
bitrator. 

It  may  be  confidently  asserted  that  the  purpose  of 
the  arbitration,  which  was  agreed  to  by  Chile  and 
Peru  in  the  Washington  Protocol,  was  to  end  this  long- 
standing controversy,  which  has  been  for  thirty  years 
an  obstacle  to  the  restoration  of  complete  friendship 
between  the  two  countries.  Arbitration  was  to  sup- 
plant negotiation;  juridical  procedure,  diplomacy:  an 
arbitral  award,  the  special  protocol  provided  for  in 
Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon. 

The  submission  to  arbitration  of  the  controversy 
concerning  Tacna-Arica  is  in  the  form  of  three  spe- 
cific questions  set  forth  in  the  Supplementary  Agree- 
ment, which  is  made  a  part  of  the  Washington  Pro- 
tocol, and  this  limitation  to  specific  questions  reduces 
the  scope  of  the  arbitration  and  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Arbitrator  to  answering  primarily  the  First  Question, 
and,  in  the  event  that  that  question,  which  relates 
to  holding  a  plebiscite,  is  answered  in  the  affirmative, 
then  to  answering  the  other  two  questions.  It,  how- 
ever,, reduces  that  jurisdiction  to  the  First  and  pos- 
sibly the  Third  Questions  in  the  event  that  the  First 
Question  is  answered  in  the  negative. 

An  affirmative  answer  to  the  First  Question  will 
end  for  all  time  this  old  and  continuing  controversy 
which  has  for  a  third  of  a  century  vexed  the  Min- 


Statement  in  Conclusion.  181 

istries  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Chile  and  Peru  and  has 
for  many  years  caused  the  severance  of  diplomatic 
relations  between  the  two  countries,  kept  alive  a  feel- 
ing of  bitterness  and  hostility  between  the  peoples 
of  the  two  Republics,  and  disturbed  the  tranquillity 
of  South  America.  To  bring  to  a  conclusion  these 
antagonisms  and  to  restore  cordial  relations  in  the 
intercourse  of  the  Governments  of  Chile  and  Peru  and 
to  reestablish  friendliness  between  their  peoples  de- 
pend upon  a  decision  by  the  Arbitrator  that  a  plebi- 
scite should  be  held. 

A  negative  answer  to  the  First  Question  will  not 
end  this  undesirable  and  unwholesome  state  of  con- 
troversy between  Chile  and  Peru,  to  end  which  is 
the  primary  purpose  of  this  arbitration.  It  will  leave 
the  whole  subject  of  the  manner  of  settling  once  and 
for  all  the  permanent  sovereignty  over  Tacna  and 
Arica  to  a  future  negotiation  which  can  hardly  be 
expected  to  result  in  an  agreement  in  the  near  future 
between  the  two  Governments  in  view  of  the  record 
of  previous  negotiations. 

The  fundamental  idea  of  the  provisions  as  to  a 
plebiscite  contained  in  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of 
Ancon  is  the  application  of  the  principle  that  a  people 
have  the  right  to  choose  under  what  government  they 
will  live,  the  principle  vital  to  the  doctrine  known 
as  "the  consent  of  the  governed."  That  principle  is 
as  applicable  to  the  present  inhabitants  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  as  it  was  to  those  resident  there  in  1894,  when 
the  ten-year  period  expired,  before  which  expiration 
a  plebiscite  could  not  be  held,  and  as  it  would  have 
been  to  those  resident  there  in  1933  if  the  Peruvian 
proposal  of  1912  had  been  carried  into  effect. 
The  adoption  of  any  other  means  of  settlement  than 
by  a  plebiscite  would  be  to  deny  this  democratic  prin- 


182  The  Case  of  Chile. 

ciple,  which  both  Chile  and  Peru  accepted  as  right 
in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  and  might  possibly  result  in  a 
great  wrong  to  the  people  of  the  territory,  the  sover- 
eignty over  whom  is  in  dispute. 

Chile,  in  view  of  having  agreed  with  Peru  to  accept 
this  principle  when  they  exchanged  ratifications  of 
the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  would  be  compelled  to  insist 
upon  the  application  of  that  principle  in  any  nego- 
tiations which  might  result  from  the  Arbitrator  an- 
swering the  First  Question  in  the  negative ;  and  it 
seems  hardly  conceivable  that  Peru  would  deny  to  the 
inhabitants  of  Tacna  and  Arica  the  exercise  of  a  free 
choice  of  their  governors  by  declaring  who  should 
possess  the  sovereignty,  when  such  denial  would  be 
a  repudiation  of  a  principle  to  which  she  gave  her 
formal  and  unqualified  assent  when  she  ratified  the 
Treaty  of  1883,  and  which  she  has  never  denied  in 
the  course  of  negotiations  with  Chile  extending  over 
thirty  years. 

•  This  being  so,  a  plebiscite,  however  the  Arbitrator 
decides  the  First  Question,  would  seem  to  be  the 
logical  solution  of  the  Tacna-Arica  Controversy.  Both 
parties  have  given  their  approval  to  the  application  of 
the  principle,  and  "the  present  circumstances"  refer- 
red to  in  the  First  Question  submitted  to  the  arbi- 
trator can  in  no  way  affect  the  right  of  the  present 
inhabitants  of  the  territory  to  have  the  principle  ap- 
plied to  them. 

The  discussion  of  the  terms  of  a  plebiscite  in  the 
future  negotiation  contemplated  by  the  Supplemen- 
tary Agreement  of  July  20,  1922,  in  the  event  that 
the  First  Question  is  -answered  in  the  negative  by 
the  Arbitrator,  would  be  but  a  continuation  of  the 
controversy  which  this  Arbitration  was  intended  to 
bring  to   an  end.     A  negative   answer   would   leave 


Statement  in  Conclusion.  183 

the  dispute  in  the  same  unsatisfactory  state,  in  which 
it  was  prior  to  the  signature  of  the  Washington  Pro- 
tocol, except  that  the  good  offices  of  the  United  States 
of  America  might  be  invoked  in  a  future  attempt 
to  reach  an  agreement  as  to  the  terms  of  the  plebiscite. 

From  the  purely  practical  standpoint,  and  in  order 
to  prevent  an  unprofitable  and  useless  delay  in  set- 
tling the  dispute  as  to  Tacna  and  Arica,  it  is  manifestly 
expedient,  as  well  as  just,  that  the  Arbitrator  should 
answer  the  First  Question  in  the  affirmative  and  pro- 
ceed to  determine  the  conditions  for  holding  the  plebi- 
scite in  accordance  with  the  power  granted  to  him  in 
Clause  Third  of  the  Supplementary  Agreement.  It  is 
expedient  because  it  will  end  the  Tacna- Arica  Question, 
because  it  will  prevent  a  future  negotiation  between 
Chile  and  Peru  concerning  such  conditions,  and  be- 
cause it  will  meet  the  express  desire  of  the  two  dispu- 
tant Governments  and  also  that  of  the  Government  of 
the  United  States,  at  whose  instance  and  through  whose 
good  offices  the  submission  to  arbitration  was  nego- 
tiated at  Washington. 

The  terms  of  submission  of  the  First  Question  do 
not  preclude  the  Arbitrator  from  considering  the  ex- 
pediency of  answering  that  question  in  the  affirmative. 
His  right  of  scrutiny  is  broad  and  general,  and  in- 
cludes not  only  an  examination  of  the  legal  principles 
involved  but  also  the  consideration  of  the  expediency 
and  wisdom  of  rendering  a  decision  of  that  question, 
which  will  settle  the  controversy,  a  settlement  which 
will  be  advantageous  to  both  parties  and  make  for 
peace  and  international  friendship.  Chile  not  only 
affirms  that  the  Arbitrator  possesses  this  right  but  con- 
fidently expects  that  he  will  employ  it  in  formulating 
his  answer  to  the  First  Question. 


184  The  Case  of  Chile. 

The  phrase,  "in  the  present  circumstances  [en  las 
circumstancias  actuates],"  from  this  point  of  view 
possesses  a  significant  meaning,  since  it  includes,  in 
addition  to  the  political,  social,  economic  and  intel- 
lectual conditions,  which  exist  today  in  Tacna  and 
Arica,  the  facts,  that  the  repeated  attempts  by  the 
parties  to  negotiate  the  special  protocol  provided  for 
in  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  have  failed,  that 
diplomatic  relations  between  Chile  and  Peru  have  been 
severed  and  continue  to  be  severed  because  this  con- 
troversy has  remained  unsettled,  that  a  future  nego- 
tiation would  presumably  perpetuate  the  present  un- 
fortunate state  of  disagreement  and  irritation,  and  that 
a  failure  in  this  arbitration  to  settle  the  differences 
between  Chile  and  Peru  as  to  Tacna-Arica  would  be 
detrimental  to  Pan-American  concord  and  good  will, 
which  is  today  the  common  desire  and  hope  of  all 
the  American  Republics. 

The  mere  lapse  of  time  is  not  one  of  "the  present 
circumstances"  which  can  be  successfully  urged  as  an 
obstacle  to  the  holding  of  the  plebiscite,  since  in  the 
identic  proposals  of  the  year  1912  both  Governments 
advocated  the  postponement  of  that  act  to  the  year 
1933;  and  furthermore,  if  the  lapse  of  time  was  ever 
a  valid  reason  against  holding  the  plebiscite,  which 
Chile  does  not  admit,  Peru  has  waived  her  right  to 
raise  it  by  her  failure  to  do  so  during  nearly  thirty 
years  of  negotiation. 

Chile,  therefore,  requests  the  Arbitrator  to  answer 
the  First  Question  in  the  affirmative  by  deciding  that 
in  the  present  circumstances  a  plebiscite  should  be 
held  as  provided  in  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  An- 
con and  in  accordance  with  the  doctrine  of  "consent 
of  the  governed." 


Statement  in  Conclusion.  185 

On  the  assumption  that  the  Arbitrator  decides  the 
First  Question  in  the  affirmative,  Chile  further  requests 
that  the  conditions  for  holding  the  plebiscite,  which 
the  Arbitrator  possesses  the  power  to  determine  un- 
der the  provisions  x)f  the  Supplementary  Agreement 
of  July  20,  1922,  may  be  determined  by  him  along  the 
general  lines  laid  down  in  Part  III  of  this  Case,  which 
conditions  Chile  believes  to  be  fair  to  both  parties,  just 
to  the  people  affected,  and  in  harmony  with  the  practice 
of  nations  when  they  seek  to  learn  the  popular  will 
through  a  plebiscitary  proceeding.  It  should  be  borne 
in  mind  in  considering  the  conditions  for  holding  the 
plebiscite  suggested  by  Chile  that  the  present  inhabi- 
tants of  Tacna  and  Arica  are  the  people  who  will  be 
affected  by  the  result  of  the  plebiscite,  that  they  are 
"the  governed,"  and  that  it  is  their  "consent"  which 
should  be  obtained  through  the  medium  of  a  popular 
vote.  Unless  the  importance  of  this  fact  is  recognized, 
conditions  may  be  unintentionally  imposed  which  will 
work  grave  injustice  to  the  population  of  the  territory, 
whose  future  sovereign  is  in  issue.  While  Chile  has 
every  confidence  that  the  Arbitrator  will  give  full 
weight  to  the  right  of  the  present  inhabitants  of  Tacna 
and  Arica  to  determine  for  themselves  under  what 
sovereignty  they  shall  live,  a  right  specifically  declared 
in  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  and  never  ex- 
pressly denied  by  Peru  in  her  discussions  of  this  sub- 
ject, Chile  considers  that  she  is  justified,  because  of  the 
importance  of  this  fact,  in  again  calling  it  to*  the  par- 
ticular attention  of  the  Arbitrator  since  it  should  be, 
in  her  opinion,  a  controlling  factor  in  the  formulation 
of  conditions  governing  the  plebiscite. 

As  to  the  Third  Question  submitted  to  the  Arbi- 
trator in  the  Supplementary  Agreement  of  July  20, 


186  The  Case  of  Chile. 

1922,  which  question  relates  to  Tarata  and  Chilcaya, 
Chile  respectfully  suggests  that  the  Arbitrator  name 
a  Special  Commissioner  to  investigate  and  report  to 
him  upon  the  geographical  data  and  the  topographical 
conditions  affecting  the  delimitation  of  the  boundaries 
in  dispute  and  that  he,  the  Arbitrator,  delay  his  -de- 
cision of  the  Third  Question  until  such  investigation 
and  report  have  been  made.  In  connection  with  the 
foregoing  suggestion,  Chile  also  proposes  that  this 
question  of  boundaries  be  decided  regardless  of  the 
way  in  which  the  Arbitrator  answers  the  First  Ques- 
tion, and  also  that  the  answers  to  the  First  and  Sec- 
ond Questions  should  not  be  delayed  until  the  Arbi- 
trator is  prepared  to  decide  the  Third  Question, 
which  could  be  conveniently  decided  in  a  supplemental 
award. 

Before  closing  the  presentation  of  her  Case  Chile 
desires  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Arbitrator  to  the 
words  of  Don  Luis  Aldunate,  one  of  the  negotiators 
of  the  Treaty  of  Peace,  in  his  memorial  of  1883  sub- 
mitting the  Treaty  to  the  Chilean  Congress,  which  ex- 
press the  attitude  of  Chile  toward  the  rights  of  the  in- 
habitants of  Tacna  and  Arica,  an  attitude  which  she 
has  maintained  for  forty  years: 

"If  the  result  of  the  plebiscite  shall  restore  the 
territorial  region  of  Tacna- Arica*  to  the  dominion 
of  Peru,  it  would  be  consonant  with  the  loyal  and 
honorable  policy  of  Chile  to  respect  the  decision 
of  those  peoples." 

With  the  foregoing  observations  and  review  of  the 
subjects,  which  are  submitted  to  arbitration  in  accor- 
dance with  the  Protocol  and  Supplementary  Agree- 
ment signed  at  Washington  on  July  20,  1922,  by  the 
duly  accredited  representatives  of  Chile    and    Peru, 


Statement  in  Conclusion.  187 

Chile  has  the  honor  to  present  to  the  President  of  the 
United  States  of  America  as  Arbitrator,  her  Case  to- 
gether with  the  documents,  maps  and  other  evidence 
on  which  she  relies  to  support  her  contentions  and  her 
requests. 

Carlos  Aldunate  S., 
Ernesto  Barros, 
Agents  for  the  Republic  of  Chile. 
Robert  Lansing, 
L.  H.  Woolsey, 

Counsel  for  the  Republic  of  Chile. 


Tacna-Arica  Arbitration 


THE  APPENDIX 

TO  THE 

CASE  OF  THE  REPUBLIC  OF  CHILE 

SUBMITTED  TO 

THE  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 
AS  ARBITRATOR 

UNDER  THE  PROVISIONS  OF  THE  PROTOCOL  AND 

SUPPLEMENTARY  AGREEMENT  ENTERED 

INTO  BETWEEN  CHILE  AND  PERU 

AT  WASHINGTON  ON 

JULY  20,  1922 


Tacna-Arica  Arbitration 


THE  APPENDIX 

TO  THE 

CASE  OF  THE  REPUBLIC  OF  CHILE 

SUBMITTED  TO 

THE  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 
AS  ARBITRATOR 

UNDER  THE  PROVISIONS  OF  THE  PROTOCOL  AND 

SUPPLEMENTARY  AGREEMENT  ENTERED 

INTO  BETWEEN  CHILE  AND  PERU 

AT  WASHINGTON  ON 

JULY  20,  1922 


INDEX. 
DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE  AND  NEGOTIATIONS. 

PAGE 

1884     November  10-    Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Minister  of  For- 
eign Relations  of   Chile 3 

November  13  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile  to  Min- 
ister of  Peru  in  Chile 4 

1886  March  17  Minister  of  Chile  in  Peru  to  Minister  of  For- 

eign Relations  of  Peru 5 

July  14  Consul  of  Pern  in  Iquique  to  Minister  of  For- 
eign Relations  of  Peru 7 

October  13  Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Minister  of  For- 
eign Relations  in  Chile 11 

1887  March  5  Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Minister  of  For- 

eign Relations  in  Chile 13 

March  8  Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Minister  of  For- 
eign Relations  of  Chile 14 

April  14  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile  to  Min- 
ister of  Peru  in  Chile 17 

April  18  Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Minister  of  For- 
eign Relations  of  Peru 19 

April  19  Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Minister  of  For- 
eign Relations  of  Chile 20 

1890     June  10              Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Minister  of  For- 
eign Relations  of  Peru 21 

1892  August  10  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  to  Min- 

ister of  Chile  in  Peru 24 

August  11  Minister  of  Chile  in  Peru  to  Minister  of  For- 
eign Relations  of  Peru 25 

September  5  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  to  Min- 
ister of  Chile  in  Peru 26 

September  5  Enclosure  to  Note  of  Minister  of  Foreign  Re- 
lations of  Peru  to  Minister  of  Chile  in  Peru.  .     27 

September  5  Minister  of  Chile  in  Peru  to  Minister  of  For- 
eign Relations  of  Peru 28 

1893  April  4  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  to  Min- 

ister of  Chile  in  Peru 29 

April  8  Minister  of  Chile  in  Peru  to  Minister  of  For- 
eign Relations  of  Peru 30 

April  8  Minister  of  Chile  in  Peru  to  Minister  of  For- 
eign Relations  of  Peru 32 

April  18  First  Conference  between  Minister  of  Chile  in 

Peru    and    Minister   of   Foreign  Relations    of 

Peru 34 

1893     June  19  Second  Conference  between  Minister  of  For- 

eign Relations  of  Peru  and  Minister  of  Chile     36 


INDEX  (Continued) 


June  30 

August  19 
August  19 
August  19 
September  16 

September  26 
November  10 

December  7 

1894  January  26 
January  26 
February  23 

March  9 

March  27 
March  29 
September  21 
October  4 

1895  August  3 
August  3 
August  5 

1895     August  9 

August  20 


PAGE 

Third  Conference  between  Minister  of  Foreign 
Eelations   of  Peru   and   Minister   of   Chile  in 

Peru 38 

Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru  to  Min- 
ister of  Chile  in  Peru 39 

Enclosure  to  Note  of  Minister  of  Foreign  Ee- 
lations of  Peru  to  Minister  of  Chile  in  Peru . .     40 
Minister  of  Chile  in  Peru  to  Minister  of  For- 
eign Eelations  of  Peru 42 

Fourth  Conference  between  Minister  of  For- 
eign Eelations  of  Peru  and  Minister  of  Chile 

in  Peru  43 

Minister  of  Chile  in  Peru  to  Minister  of  For- 
eign Eelations  of  Peru 45 

Fifth  Conference  between  Minister  of  For- 
eign Eelations  of  Peru  and  Minister  of  Chile 

in  Peru  47 

Sixth  Conference  between  Minister  of  Foreign 
Eelations   of   Peru   and  Minister   of   Chile   in 

Peru 50 

Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru  to  Min- 
ister of  Chile  in  Peru 52 

Minister  of  Chile  in  Peru  to  Minister  of  For- 
eign Eelations  of  Peru 54 

Memorandum  Submitted  by  Minister  of  Peru 
in  Chile  to  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of 

Chile 55 

Memorandum  Delivered  by  Minister  of  For- 
eign Eelations  of  Peru  to  Minister  of  Chile  in 

Peru 59 

Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Minister  of  For- 
eign Eelations  of  Chile 62 

Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile  to  Min- 
ister of  Peru  in  Chile 63 

Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Minister  of  For- 
eign Eelations  of  Chile 68 

Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile  to  Min- 
ister of  Peru  in  Chile 72 

Minister  of  Chile  in  Peru  to  President  of  the 

Council  of  Government  of  Peru 74 

Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru  to  Min- 
ister of  Chile  in  Peru 74 

Proceedings  of  Conference  held  between  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru  and  Min-  • 

ister  of  Chile  in  Peru 75 

Proceedings  of  Conference  held  between  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru  and  Min- 
ister of  Chile  in  Peru 76 

Proceedings  of  Conference  held  between  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru  and  Min- 
ister of  Chile  in  Peru 78 


INDEX  (Continued) 


August  23 

October  4 

' 

October  8 

October  9 

October  24 

October  30 

November  23 

December  17 

December  27 

, 

December  31 

1896 

February  3 

February  10 

1897 

August  14 

1898 

April  9 

1900 

May  10 

1900 

May  26 

June  12 

July  10 

July  11 

PAGE 

Proceedings  of  Conference  held  between  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru  and  Min- 
ister of  Chile  in  Peru 80 

Proceedings  of  Conference  held  between  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru  and  Min- 
ister of  Chile  in  Peru 82 

Proceedings  of  Conference  held  between  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru  and  Min- 
ister of  Chile  in  Peru 84 

Proceedings  of  Conference  held  between  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru  and  Min- 
ister of  Chile  in  Peru 86 

Proceedings  of  Conference  held  between  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru  and  Min- 
ister of  Chile  in  Peru 87 

Proceedings  of  Conference  held  between  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru  and  Min- 
ister of  Chile  in  Peru 88 

Minister  of  Chile  in  Peru  to  Minister  of  For- 
eign Eelations  of  Peru 92 

Proceedings  of  Conference  held  between  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru  and  Min- 
ister of  Chile  in  Peru 93 

Proceedings  of  Conference  held  between  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru  and  Min- 
ister of  Chile  in  Peru 94 

Proceedings  of  Conference  held  between  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru  and  Min- 
ister of  Chile  in  Peru. .  . . 95 

Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru  to  Min- 
ister of  Chile  in  Peru 97 

Minister  of  Chile  in  Peru  to  Minister  of  For- 
eign Eelations  of  Peru 105 

Proceedings  of  Conference  held  between  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru  and  Min- 
ister of  Chile  in  Peru 128 

Proceedings  of  Conferences  held  in  February 
and  March,  1898,  between  Minister  Plenipoten- 
tiary of  Peru  on  Special  Mission  and  Minister 

of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile 131 

Draft  of  Proceedings  of  Conference,  Submit- 
ted by  Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Minister 

of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile 148 

Draft  of  Proceedings  of  Conference,  Submit- 
ted by  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile 

to  Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile 155 

Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Minister  of  For- 
eign Eelations  of  Chile 156 

Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru  to  Min- 
ister of  Chile  in  Peru 166 

Minister  of  Chile  in  Peru  to  Minister  of  For- 
eign Eelations  of  Peru 171 


INDEX  (Continued) 


July  12 
October  8 
November  14 
December  15 
December  18 
1901     January  14 
January  19 
January  30 
February  18 
March  7 
March  13 
May  26 

1903  October  1 

1904  May  4 

July  16 
August  6 


1904  August  12 
November  15 

1905  February  18 
March  15 


PAGE 

Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile  to  Min- 
ister of  Peru  in  Chile 173 

Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Minister  of  For- 
eign Eelations  of  Chile 177 

Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Minister  of  For- 
eign Eelations  of  Chile 179 

Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Minister  of  For- 
eign Eelations  of  Chile 202 

Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile  to  Min- 
ister of  Peru  in  Chile 204 

Eeport  of  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  Sub- 
mitted to  Chilean  Chamber  of  Deputies 208 

Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile  to  Min- 
ister of  Peru  in  Chile 210 

Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Minister  of  For- 
eign Eelations  of  Chile 225 

Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile  to  Min- 
ister of  Peru  in  Chile 241 

Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Minister  of  For- 
eign Eelations  of  Chile 250 

Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile  to  Min- 
ister of  Peru  in  Chile 256 

Circular  of  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of 
Peru  to  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  Abroad  258 
Eeport    Presented   by   Director   of    Boundary 
Office  of  Chile  to  Minister  of  Interior  of  Chile  278 
Supreme    Decree    Issued    by    Government    of 
Chile  Fixing  the  Limits  between  Departments 

of  Arica  and  Pisagua 327 

Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru  to  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile 329 

Eeport  Presented  by  Director  of  Boundary  Of- 
fice of  Chile  to  Minister  of  Interior  of  Chile.  .   334 
Enclosure    to   Preceding   Document, — Decision 
of  Judge  of  Pisagua  on  Case  of  Banco  Aleman 
Transatlantico  vs.   Compania  Minera  de  Chil- 

caya,  dated  June  10,  1901 338 

Enclosure  to  Note  of  August  6,  1904 — Decision 
Given  by  Court  of  Appeals  of  Tacna  on  Case 
of  Banco  Aleman  Transatlantico  vs.  Compania 
Minera  de  Chilcaya,  dated  December  6,  1901.  .  339 
Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile  to  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru 339 

Declaratory  Act  Signed  by  Minister  of  For- 
eign Eelations  of  Chile  and  Minister  of  Bolivia 

in   Chile    345 

Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru  to  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile 347 

Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile  to  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru 354 


INDEX  (Continued) 


April  25 
June  5 

1908  March  25 
May     8 
August  29 
August  29 

1909  August  11 
September  9 
September  30 
November  1 


November  5 

November  5 
December  23 

1910     March  3 
March  15 
March  19 
March  20 

1912  November  10 
November  10 
November  10 
November  10 
November  10 


PAGE 

Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru  to  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile 362 

Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile  to  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru 369 

Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile  to  Min- 
ister of  Peru  in  Chile 370 

Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Minister  of  For- 
eign Eelations  of  Chile 381 

Presentation  Address  of  Minister  of  Chile  in 

Peru  to  President  of  Peru 408 

Eesponse  of  President  of  Peru  to  Minister  of 
Chile  in  Peru,  on  Presentation  of  his  Creden- 
tials     410 

Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile  to  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru. 411 

Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru  to  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile 414 

Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru  to  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile 419 

Minister  of  United  States  in  Chile  to  Secretary 

of  State  of  United  States 422 

Enclosure  to  Preceding  Note — Statement  of 
Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile  of  the 
Bases  for  Settlement  of  Tacna-Arica  Ques- 
tion, dated  October  15,  190$ 423 

Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru  to 
Charge  d 'Affaires  of  Chile  in  Peru.  Memo- 
randum    424 

Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile  to  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru 426 

Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru  to  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile 434 

Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile  to  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru 445 

Circular  of  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of 

Chile  to  Legations  of  Chile  abroad 466 

Charge  d  'Affaires  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile 492 

Minister    of    Foreign    Eelations    of    Chile    to 

Charge  d 'Affaires  of  Peru  in  Chile 493 

Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru  to  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile 495 

Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile  to  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru 496 

Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru  to  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile 497 

Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru  to  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile 499 

Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile  to  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru 499 


INDEX   (Continued) 


PAGE 

November  30     Secret   Message   of  President  Billinghurst   to 

Congress  of  Peru 500 

1920  August  16         President   of   Chile  to   Confidential   Agent   of 

Chile  before  Government  of  Peru 518 

August  17  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile  to  Con- 
fidential Agent  of  Chile  before  Government 
of  Peru 519 

1921  September  20    Circular  of  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of 

Peru  to  Ministers  of  Foreign  Relations  Abroad  520 

December  12  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile  to  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru 536 

December  17  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  to  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile 539 

December  20  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile  to  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru 542 

December  20     Circular  of  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of 

Chile  to  Legations  of  Chile  abroad 547 

December  24  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  to  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. . 572 

December  26  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile  to  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru 576 

December  28  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  to  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile 578 

December  29  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile  to  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru 580 

1921  December  31     Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  to  Min- 

ister of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile 584 

1922  January  18       Ambassador  of  United  States  in  Chile  to  Min- 

ister of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile 588 

January  19  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile  to  Am- 
bassador of  United  States 589 

May  15  Speech  Delivered  by  Secretary  of  State,  Mr. 
Charles  E.  Hughes,  at  Inaugural  Session  of 
Chilean-Peruvian  Conference  in  Washington, 
D.  C 591 

May  15  Speech  Delivered  by  Chilean  Delegate,  Sr.  Luis 
Izquierdo,  at  Inaugural  Session  of  Chilean- 
Peruvian  Conference  in  Washington,  D.  C 594 

June  13  Speech  of  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of 
Chile,  Delivered  in  Session  of  Chamber  of  Dep- 
uties    595 

June  30  Proceedings    of    Chilean-Peruvian    Conference 

held  in  Washington,  D.  C 609 

June  15  Memorandum    Presented    by    Ambassador    of 

Chile  to  Secretary  of  State  of  United  States. .   633 

July  6  Ambassador  of  Chile  in  United  States  to  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile 636 

July  19  Ambassador  of  Chile  in  United  States  to  Sec- 
retary of  State  of  United  States 637 


INDEX  (Continued')  vii 

PAGE 

July  19  Secretary  of  State  of  United  States  to  Ambas- 
sador of  Chile  in  United  States 638 

July  17  Conference  held  between  Secretary  of  State  of 
United  States  and  Chairmen  of  Chilean  and 
Peruvian   Delegations    639 

July  20  Proceedings    of    Chilean-Peruvian    Conference 

held  in  Washington,  D.  C 644 

July  20  Speech   of   Minister   of   Foreign  Eelations   of 

Chile,  Delivered  in  Session  of  Senate 649 

TEEATIES,  AGEEEMENTS,  etc. 

1866  August  10  Treaty  between  Chile  and  Bolivia 667 

1873  February  6        Secret  Treaty  between  Bolivia  and  Peru 670 

1874  August  6  Treaty  between  Chile  and  Bolivia 674 

1875  July  21  Supplementary    Protocol    of    Chilean-Bolivian 

Treaty  of  1874  ' 676 

1883  October  20         Treaty  between  Chile  and  Peru 677 

1884  April  4  Truce  Agreement  between  Chile  and  Bolivia..   681 

1902     September  23    Treaty  between  Bolivia  and  Peru 685 

1904  October  20  Treaty  between  Chile  and  Bolivia  and  Conven- 
tion for  Construction  and  Operation  of  a  Eail- 
road  from  Arica  to  La  Paz 688 

1922     July  20  Protocol  of  Arbitration  signed  in  Washington, 

D.  C,  between  Delegates  of  Chile  and  Peru . .   699 

1922  July  20  Supplementary  Act  of  Protocol  of  Arbitration 
Signed  in  Washington,  D.  C,  between  Dele- 
gates of  Chile  and  Peru 700 


1874     November  3 


November  12 

1914 

February  21 

1860 

November  13 

1861 

April  4 

May  22 

1919 

July  14 

1922 


MISCELLANEOUS. 

Electoral  Law  of  Chile  Fixing  the  Value  of 
Eeal   Estate,    Income,    etc.,    Eequired   for   the 

Exercise  of  Eight  of  Suffrage 705 

Electoral  Law  of  Chile 706 

Electoral  Law  of  Chile 708 

Political  Constitution  of  Peru 710 

Electoral  Law  of  Peru 710 

Census  and  Civic  Eegistry  Law  of  Peru 711 

Decree  Issued  by  President  of  Peru,  Eegarding 

General  Elections   711 

Chapter   Entitled   "Expulsion  of  Peruvians" 
taken  from  "Hacia  la  Solucion"  by  Sr.  Er- 
nesto Barros 713 

Description  of  Tacna  and  Arica 733 

Chronology  of  Events 763 


DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE 
AND  NEGOTIATIONS. 


DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE 
AND  NEGOTIATIONS, 


Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Minister  of  Foreign  Re- 
lations of  Chile, 

[Translation.] 

Santiago,  November  10,  1884. 

Dear  Sir  and  Friend  : 

In  official  communication,  dated  the  28th  ultimo  the 
Peruvian  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  informed  me 
that,  under  date  of  the  18th  of  this  month,  a  decree 
imposing  a  patent  tax  on  the  inhabitants  of  Tarata 
was  issued  by  the  provincial  government  of  Tacna. 

You  are  aware  that  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of 
Peace  of  October  the  20th  of  last  year  does  not  include 
Tarata  in  the  demarcation  of  Tacna  province,  since 
that  instrument  definitely  fixes  the  Sama  River  as  the 
northern  boundary  of  that  province,  and  Tarata  lies 
to  the  north  of  that  river. 

Therefore,  the  provincial  governor  of  Tacna  is  un- 
questionably without  power  to  impose  taxes  upon,  or 
issue  decrees  of  any  kind  relating  to  territories  for- 
eign to  his  jurisdiction. 

In  the  presence  of  an  act  so  serious  the  Minister 
of  foreign  Relations  instructs  me  to  take  proper  steps 
before  your  Government  looking  to  the  revocation  of 
that  decree  and  the  return  to  the  inhabitants  of  Ta- 
rata of  the  amount  of  money  collected  from  them. 

It  being  in  my  opinion  impossible  that  the  above 
mentioned  official  could  have  proceeded  in  this  matter 


under  instructions  from  his  Government,  being  sin- 
cerely interested,  as  it  is,  in  the  strict  fulfillment  of 
the  stipulations  contained  in  the  Treaty  of  Peace,  I 
have  thought  it  preferable,  before  addressing  to  you 
an  official  note  on  the  subject,  to  request  you  to  be  good 
enough  to  inform  me  whether  my  personal  understand- 
ing of  the  incident  is  correct. 

The  unprecedented  action  of  the  provincial  govern- 
ment of  Tacna,  at  this  time  possesses,  in  the  eyes  of 
my  Government  a  character  doubly  serious,  since, 
aside  from  being  a  flagrant  violation  of  a  pact  in 
which  the  good  faith  of  the  two  peoples  is  engaged, 
it  carries  with  it  for  Peru,  the  germs  of  other  dif- 
ficulties, for  it  offers  new  pretexts  for  the  enemies  of 
internal  peace. 

Those  enemies  will  not  fail  to  exploit  the  incident 
by  invoking  the  patriotism  of  the  masses  against 
the  regrettable  eventualities  that  must  result  to  the 
country  from  such  violations  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace. 

I  trust  that  the  Chilean  Government  will  speedily 
rectify  the  mistake  in  consonance  with  the  friendly 
and  cordial  relations  in  the  reestablishment  of  which 
it  has  been  my  grateful  privilege  to  assist. 

Your  sincere  friend  and  servant, 

Vidal  Garcia  y  Garcia. 
Sehor  Don  Aniceto  Vergara  Albano, 

Santiago. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile  to  Minister 
of  Peru  in  Chile. 

[Translation.] 

Santiago,  November  13,  1884. 

My  Dear  Sir  and  Friend: 

I  have  the  honor   to   acknowledge  the   receipt   of 
your  esteemed  favor  of  the  10th  instant.     I  regret 


exceedingly  that  I  cannot  give  you  a  formal  reply 
with  respect  to  the  essential  point  in  the  first  part  of 
your  letter,  for  although  I  have  given  it  to  the  Pre- 
sident to  read,  we  find  ourselves  inconvenienced  by 
the  absence  of  not  only  exact  maps  of  the  territories 
in  question  but  also  of  any  certain  point  of  departure. 
In  this  emergency  we  have  decided  to  ask  the  Pro- 
vincial Governor  of  Tacna  for  the  necessary  antece- 
dents in  the  case  so  that  we  may  be  fully  informed. 

Your  obedient  servant, 
A.  Vergara  Albano. 
Sefior  Don  Vidal  Garcia  y  Garcia. 
Santiago. 


Minister  of  Chile  in  Peru  to  Minister  of  Foreign  Re- 
lations of  Peru. 

[Translation.] 

Lima,  March  17,  1886. 
Mr.  Minister: 

In  reply  to  the  note  of  Your  Excellency  of  the  25th 
of  February,  ultimo,  relative  to  that  of  your  honorable 
predecessor,  dated  the  16th  of  the  same  month  of  last 
year,  regarding  the  boundaries  of  the  territory  which 
Chile  should  possess  during  ten  years,  in  conformity 
with  the  Treaty  of  October  20,  1883,  I  wish  to  inform 
Your  Excellency  that,  having  received  instructions 
from  my  Government  to  deal  with  this  question,  1 
now  proceed,  in  accordance  therewith,  to  give  Your 
Excellency  an  answer  as  to  the  matter  that  caused  the 
above  mentioned  communication  of  February  16,  1885. 

My  Government,  wishing  to  have  new  reports,  in 
spite  of  the  sure  data  that  it  possessed,  heard  the  polit- 


ical  head  of  Tacna,  who  stated  that  the  taxes  imposed, 
which  also  had  been  the  object  of  observations,  as 
well  as  the  subdelegations  created,  were  within  the 
jurisdiction  of  Chile,  according  to  the  Treaty  of  Oc- 
tober 20th. 

The  River  Sama  being  the  northern  boundary  of  the 
territories  whose  possession  to  Chile  for  a  term  of  ten 
years — a  boundary,  the  fixing  of  which  was  in  fact  the 
object  of  two  long  conferences — the  Chilean  jurisdic- 
tion exercised  therein,  is  beyond  all  discussion. 

The  undersigned  was  convinced  that  the  political 
authorities  of  that  territory  had  adjusted  their  acts  to 
that  stipulation  and  to  the  supreme  orders  and  dispo- 
sitions issued  in  obedience  to  what  had  been  cove- 
nanted; and  that  is  why,  upon  acknowledging  receipt 
on  February  18th  of  the  said  note  of  the  16th,  I  has- 
tened to  express  that  I  would  hand  it  to  my  Govern- 
ment on  the  trip  to  Valparaiso,  upon  which  I  was  start- 
ing on  that  very  same  day ;  but  that  since  now  I  could 
anticipate  that,  as  the  honorable  predecessor  of  Your 
Excellency  stated  with  so  much  reason,  it  was  impos- 
sible to  suppose  that  Chile  would  have  then,  or  ever, 
the  intention  of  altering  to  the  smallest  extent  that 
which  she  clearly  and  categorically  had  covenanted. 
The  uprightness  of  her  acts  does  not  permit  it  to  be 
suspected,  I  added,  even  in  hypothesis,  and  I  am  sat- 
isfied to  observe  that  the  Supreme  Government  of 
Your  Excellency  does  honor  to  the  loyalty  with  which 
the  Republic  that  I  represent  respects  what  is  due  an 
honest  country. 

To  offer  Your  Excellency  an  unequivocal  proof  that 
it  desires  to  solve  all  difficulties,  my  Government  pro- 
poses a  means  of  simple  and  correct  solution,  that  is, 
that  a  commission  of  experts,  one  appointed  by  Chile 


and  another  by  Peru,  shall  come  together  and  study 
the  data  that  they  may  deem  necessary  by  inspecting 
the  course  followed  by  the  Sama  Eiver  from  its  sources 
to  its  outlet.  The  boundary  line  thus  fixed,  in  a  clear 
and  unequivocal  manner,  a  friendly  and  definite  solu- 
tion will  have  been  reached,  and  all  doubts  will  be 
settled. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  means  indicated  reveals  the 
unflinching  purpose  of  complying  with  Article  III  of 
the  Treaty  and  also  looks  for  the  solution  of  the  diffi- 
culty in  a  manner  satisfactory  to  the  high  contracting 
parties. 

I  renew  to  Your  Excellency  the  assurances  of  my 
high  consideration  with  which  I  have  the  honor  to  sub- 
scribe myself  as  Your  Excellency's  most  attentive  and 
obedient  servant. 

Jovino  Novoa. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru. 


Consul  of  Peru  in  Iquique  to  Minister  of  Foreign  Af- 
fairs of  Peru. 

[Translation.] 

Consulate  General  of  Peru  in   Chile, 

Iquique,  July  14,  1886. 
Mr.  Minister: 

Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace,  which  was  signed 
with  Chile  by  General  Don  Miguel  Iglesias,  stipulates 
that  the  northern  boundary  of  Tacna  territory  (tem- 
porarily ceded)  is  the  Sama  River  from  its  source  in 
the  cordilleras  that  constitute  the  boundary  with  Bo- 
livia to  its  mouth  in  the  Pacific  Ocean. 


The  interpretation  given  by  this  Government  in 
its  practical  application  of  that  Article  is,  of  course, 
far  from  correct:  it  is  furthermore  fanciful  and  is 
enormously  and  transcendent-ally  injurious  to  the  pres- 
ent and  future  interests  of  Peru. 

The  Government  of  Chile,  with  the  purpose  of  em- 
bracing more  territory  than  is  assigned  to  it  under 
that  Treaty,  has  taken  as  the  source  of  the  Sama  River 
the  Tarata  River  which  is  merely  one  of  the  affluents 
of  the  Sama. 

Thus  the  districts  of  Tarata  and  Tarucachi,  which 
represent  an  immense  expanse  of  territory  and  a  popu- 
lation of  more  than  3,000  Indian  inhabitants,  have 
passed  without  further  steps  and  wholly  on  that  as- 
sumption, into  the  control  of  Chile  and  are  at  the  pres- 
ent moment  occupied  by  her. 

The  exact  source  of  the  Sama  River  is  in  the  Cor- 
dilleras bounding  on  Bolivia  and  known  as  Grande 
and  Pequefio  Barroso,  mountains  whose  elevation 
above  sea  level  exceeds  20,000  English  feet.  From 
its  source  to  its  confluence  with  the  Tarata  River  it 
is  known  as  the  Estique  River,  and  from  that  point 
of  confluence,  onward,  to  its  disemboguement  in  the 
sea,  it  bears  the  name  of  the  Sama  River  because  it 
flows  through  and  waters  the  valley  of  that  name. 

The  same  condition  exists  with  respect  to  this  river 
as  with  respect  to  the  Loa  River  which  is  also  cited 
in  the  Treaty  of  Peace  now  being  considered. 

The  Loa  River  rises  in  the  slopes  of  the  volcano 
Mino*  in  the  extreme  southeast  of  the  province  of  Ta- 
rapaca;  it  runs  in  the  exact  direction  of  north  to  south 
to  the  point  known  as  Santa  Barbara  and  thence,  in- 
clining to  the  southwest,  it  passes  by  Chuichui  and 
ends  at  Calama,  where  it  divides  into  two  branches 
forming  the  rivers  San  Salvador  and  Guacate  which, 


in  their  turn,  go  to  form  the  single  river  again  at  the 
point  known  as  Chacance.  From  Chacance  the  river 
runs  from  south  to  north,  passing  by  the  Toco  and  ar- 
riving at  Quillagua.  From  the  point  of  Quillagua, 
occupying  both  banks  of  the  river,  it  flows  from  east 
to  west  to  its  disemboguement  in  the  ocean. 

This  river  is  known  by  as  many  names  as  points 
through  which  it  passes;  thus  it  becomes  the  Miho 
Eiver,  the  Santa  Barbara  River,  the  Chuichui,  the 
Calama,  the  San  Salvador,  the  Guacate,  the  Chacance, 
the  Toco  and  the  Quillagua,  and  from  the  town  of  the 
last  name  down  to  the  sea,  only  20  leagues  distant,  it 
bears  the  name  of  the  Loa  River. 

The  volume  of  water  of  the  Estique%  River, 
its  course,  the  hydrographic  system  it  obeys  and 
the  fact  that  it  has  its  source  in  the  highest  Cor- 
dilleras of  the  Bolivian  frontier  in  that  section  of  the 
country's  geography,  demonstrate,  clearly  and  con- 
vincingly, that  that  river,  and  no  other,  is  the  source 
of  the  river  that  waters  the  valley  of  Sama  and  that 
empties  in  the  ocean. 

The  Tarata  River,  the  fanciful  boundary  fixed  by 
Chile,  is  a  river  with  a  much  inferior  volume  of  water ; 
that  river  has  its  source  in  the  heights  of  that  name 
that  rise  above  the  sea  some  15,000  feet  and  that  are 
located  in  the  northern  extremity  of  the  province  of 
Tarata. 

The  affluents  of  the  Tarata  River  are  the  Totora, 
Challaguayo  and  Ticaco  rivers,  the  first  of  which  is 
of  some  importance. 

It  is  well  known  that  our  cordillera  system  runs 
from  north  to  south  and  that  our  rivers  on  this  side 
of  the  divortia  aqaarum  run  from  east  to  west. 

Tt  is,  then,  altogether  fanciful,  not  to  say  absurd, 
to  seek, the  source  of  the  Sama  River  in  the  secondary 
water-sheds  of  the  mere  counterforts  of  the  cordil- 


10 

leras,  which,  in  this  case,  depart  considerably  from 
the  line  that  divides  Peru  and  Bolivia. 

The  Chilean  Government,  with  much  secrecy,  or- 
dered the  preparation  of  a  topographical  map  of  the 
Tarata  province  and  of  the  Sama  Valley.  With  much 
difficulty  I  have  been  able  to  secure  an  extract  from 
that  map  and  I  beg  to  attach  it  hereto  for  the  infor- 
mation of  the  Supreme  Government. 

This  map,  as  Your  Excellency  will  see,  graphically 
confirms  the  correctness  of  my  observations. 

The  Province  of  Tarata,  as  Your  Excellency  knows, 
is  composed  of  the  following  districts  and  populations : 

Names  of  the  Population  ac- 

Districts  cording  to  the 

of  the  Province.  Census  of  1876. 

Candarave 2,378 

Curibaya 596 

Estique    672 

Tarata    2,348 

Tarucachi 593 

Ticaco 1,136 

Total 7,723 

In  conformity  with  the  interpretation  now  given  to 
the  Treaty  of  Peace  by  Chile,  the  following  districts 
remain  within  the  jurisdiction  of  Chile: 

Tarata 2,348 

Tarucachi .593 

Estique 672—3613 

and  in  the  jurisdiction  of  Peru: 

Candarave 2,378 

Curibaya 596 

Ticaco 1,136—4110 

7,723 


11 

The  strict  and  only  acceptable  interpretation  of 
Article  III  of  the  Treaty  would  leave  within  Chile 's 
jurisdiction  only  the  district  of  Estique,  the  popu- 
lation of  which  is  about  700  inhabitants. 

The  geographical  importance  and  strategic  value  of 
Tarata,  and,  more  than  all,  the  indisputable  right 
which  Peru  enjoys  over  that  vast  expanse  of  territory 
unlawfully  occupied  by  Chile,  make  abundantly  clear 
Chile's  preference  not  to  longer  postpone  the  settle- 
ment of  this  delicate  and  important  matter. 

May  God  protect  your  Excellency. 

GUII/LERMO  E.    BlLLINGHURST. 

To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru. 


Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Minister  of  Foreign  Re- 
lations in  Chile. 

[Translation.] 

Legation  of  Peru  in  Chile, 
Santiago,  October  13,  1886. 
Mr.  Minister: 

In  accordance  with  the  stipulations  of  the  Treaty 
of  Peace  that  put  an  end  4o  the  war  between  Peru 
and  Chile  the  territories  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna 
and  Arica  remained  under  the  temporary  dominion  of 
Chile,  and  in  paragraph  1st  of  Article  III  it  was  pro- 
vided that  their  northern  boundary  was  the  Sama 
River  from  its  source  in  the  cordilleras  bounding  upon 
Bolivia  to  its  mouth  in  the  ocean. 

In  spite,  however,  of  that  clear  and  positive  provi- 
sion, the  serious  mistake  has  been  made  of  taking  the 
Tarata  River  as  the  source  of  the  Sama,  the  former 
being  but  one  of  the  affluents  of  the  latter;  and  as 
a  result  of  that  mistake  several  districts  of  Tarata 


12 

province  have  been  unlawfully  segregated  therefrom 
and  the  Treaty  of  Peace  has  been  thereby  violated. 

My  Government,  which  desires  to  respect  that  in- 
ternational pact  in  all  its  parts,  is  convinced  that  Your 
Excellency's  Government  is  moved  by  the  same  desire 
and,  in  strict  interpretation  of  the  stipulations  therein 
set  forth,  will  have  no  objection  to  rectifying  the 
mistake  and  ordering  the  evacuation  of  the  districts 
that  are  now  under  the  control  of  Chilean  authorities. 

Your  Excellency's  enlightened  statesmanship  will 
not  fail  to  grasp  the  importance  of  avoiding  any  dif- 
ficulty which,  by  exciting  national  feeling,  might  dis- 
turb, however  slightly,  the  friendly  and  cordial  re- 
lations that  happily  exist  between  Chile  and  Peru, 
and  in  the  matter  now  under  discussion  Your  Excel- 
lency will  understand  how  imperative  is  the  duty  rest- 
ing upon  my  Government  to  request  from  Your  Ex- 
cellency's Government  the  reincorporation  of  the  ter- 
ritories that  were  not  included  in  the  temporary  ces- 
sion of  the  territories  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and 
Arica. 

I  beg  that  Your  Excellency  will  have  the  goodness 
to  inform  me  of  your  Government's  decision  in  this 
matter.  Shoulld  Your  Excellency,  however,  prefer 
a  verbal  discussion  of  the  question,  with  the  aid  of 
more  complete  data,  I  would  take  pleasure  in  con- 
ferring with  you  at  your  office,  convinced  that  an 
earlier  and  more  successful  solution  would  thus  be 
reached. 

I  avail  myself  of  this  opportunity  to  reiterate  to 
Your  Excellency  the  assurances  of  my  highest  esteem. 
Your  Excellency's  obedient  servant, 

Caklos  M.  Elias. 
To  His  Excellency, 

Sefior  Don  Joaquin  Godoy, 

Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  the  Republic  of 
Chile. 


13 

Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Minister  of  Foreign  Re- 
lations in  Chile. 

[Translation.] 

Legation  of  Peru  in  Chile, 
Santiago,  March  5,  1887. 
Mr.  Minister: 

As  promised  on  the  last  occasion  on  which  I  had 
the  pleasure  to  see  you,  I  enclose  herewith  a  memoran- 
dum relating  to  the  Tarata  question  which  confirms 
what  I  stated  to  Your  Excellency's  predecessor  in 
my  note  of  October  13th  of  last  year,  the  reply  to 
which  is  still  pending,  doubtless  because  of  the  con- 
gestion of  business  in  your  Department. 

It  appears  to  me,  from  the  contents  of  that  mem- 
orandum, which  is  a  resume  of  data  supplied  this  Le- 
gation by  most  competent  persons,  that  the  Peruvian 
Government  is  proven  to  be  justified  in  claiming  res- 
titution of  that  part  of  its  territory  that  was  riot 
included  in  the  temporary  cession  of  provinces  of 
Tacna  and  Arica. 

Your  Excellency's  Government  which  has  always 
declared  itself  disposed  to  fulfill  in  its  entirety  the 
pact  that  put  an  end  to  the  war,  cannot  fail,  in  this 
case,  to  recognize  the  truth  of  the  situation,  and  I 
am  confident  that,  inspired  as  it  is  by  the  loftiest 
sentiments,  it  will  have  no  objection  to  ordering  the 
return  to  Peru  of  the  districts  of  Tarata  province 
which  down  to  the  present  have  unlawfully  remained 
subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  Chile. 

This  becomes  the  more  necessary  since,  upon  the 
renewal  of  friendly  relations  between  the  two  coun- 
tries, the  duty  of  their  Governments  is  to  strive  now, 
and  in  the  future,  to  the  end  that  the  well  recognized 
interests  of  the  two  peoples,  the  mutual  respect  and 


14 

the  reciprocal  esteem  in  which  they  shall  come  to  hold 
each  other,  may  efface  all  traces  of  unhappy  dissen- 
sions and,  on  a  sure  foundation,  cement  a  friendship 
that  may  be  substantially  profitable  for  both  Peru  and 
Chile. 

I  trust,  as  Your  Excellency  has  assured  me  will  be 
the  case,  that  this  matter  will  receive  preferred  con- 
sideration and  thus  enable  us  to  reach  an  early  and 
satisfactory  solution ;  and  I  beg  to  repeat  that,  should 
it  be  necessary,  I  shall  be  glad  to  confer  with  you  at 
your  office  whenever  you  shall  be  pleased  to  call  me, 
in  order  to  demonstrate  more  effectively,  if  it  be  pos- 
sible to  do  so,  through  the  medium  of  a  special  map, 
the  correctness  of  what  is  set  forth  in  the  memoran- 
dum enclosed,  relating  to  the  source  of  the  Sama 
River. 

I  reiterate  to  Your  Excellency  the  assurances  of  my 
highest  consideration. 

■9  Your  obedient  servant, 

Cablos  M.  Elias. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations, 
of  the  Republic  of  Chile. 


Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Minister  of  Foreign  Re- 
lations of  Chile. 

[Translation.] 

Memokandum. 

Santiago,  March  8,  1887. 

The  first  paragraph  of  Article  III  of  the  Peace 
Treaty  between  Peru  and  Chile,  signed  October  20, 
1883,  says  as  follows: 

"The  territory  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  which  are  bound  on  the  north  by  the  Sama 


15 

River  from  its  source  in  the  mountain  ranges 
bordering-  on  Bolivia  to  its  disemboguement  into 
the  sea,  on  the  south  by  the  ravine  of  Camarones ; 
on  the  east  by  the  Republic  of  Bolivia,  and  on 
the  west  by  the  Pacific  Ocean,  will  continue  in 
the  possession  of  Chile  and  subject  to  the  legis- 
lation and  the  authority  of  Chile  for  the  term  of 
ten  years,  the  time  to  be  reckoned  from  the 
ratification  of  the  present  Treaty  of  Peace." 

In  spite  of  such  a  definite  prescription  Chile  has  fallen 
into  the  grave  error  of  including  a  portion  of  the 
territory  of  the  province  of  Tarata  which  has  not  been 
mentioned  in  the  temporary  cession  granted  by  the 
pact  which  put  an  end  to  the  war,  taking  as  a  di- 
viding line  the  Tarata  River  which'  is  considered  as 
the  origin  of  the  Sama.  In  this  way  there  are  dis- 
tricts of  the  province  of  Tarata  with  a  population 
of  about  four  thousand  inhabitants  who  have  remained 
segregated  from  the  jurisdiction  of  Peru.  The  River 
Sama  as  is  very  well  expressed  by  the  first  paragraph 
of  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  has  its  origin 
in  the  mountain  ranges  bordering  on  Bolivia.  These 
mountains  are  known  by  the  name  of  Grande  and 
Pequeno  Barroso  and  are  elevated  above  the  level  of 
the  sea  to  a  height  of  more  than  20,000  feet.  From 
here  up  to  its  joining  with  the  River  Tarata  it  is 
known  by  the  name  of  Estique  and  from  then  on  up 
to  its  disemboguement  into  the  ocean  bears  the  name 
of  Sama  because  it  crosses  and  waters  the  valley  of 
that  same  name.  The  amount  of  water  in  the  River 
Estique,  the  course  which  it  follows,  the  hydrographic 
system  which  it  obeys  and  the  fact  that  it  has  its 
origin  in  the  more  elevated  mountain  ranges  of  the 
Bolivian  frontier  prove  that  this  river  and  no  other 
is  the  origin  of  the  one  which  bathes  the  valley  of 
the  Sama  and  which  empties  into  the  Pacific  Ocean. 


16 

The  River  of  Tar  at  a  is,  in  amount  of  water,  much 
inferior  to  the  Estique.  It  has  its  origin  in  the 
heights  of  that  name  which  are  elevated  about  15,000 
feet  above  the  sea,  and  which  are  situated  in  the 
northern  headlands  of  the  province  of  Tarata.  It 
is  well  known  that  the  system  of  our  mountain 
ranges  runs  from  north  to  south,  and  that  our  rivers 
on  this  side  of  the  divortium  aquarwm  run  from  east 
to  west.  It  is,  then,  altogether  incorrect  to  seek  the 
origin  of  the  Sama  River  on  the  less  important  slopes 
of  the  bulwarks  of  the  Cordilleras  which  in  this  case 
depart  considerably  from  the  line  which  divides  Peru 
from  Bolivia.  The  Peruvian  negotiators,  upon  insist- 
ing on  the  redaction  of  the  first  paragraph  of  Article 
III  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace,  mentioning  clearly  that 
there  was  only  left  pro  tempore  in  the  power  of  Chile 
the  territory  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica, 
excepted  completely  the  territory  of  the  province  of 
Tarata,  and  even  that  Treaty  circumscribed  them 
within  the  limits  which  were  definitely  fixed  for  greater 
clarity  and  precision.  But  saying  that  the  northern 
boundary  was  the  River  Sama  from  its  source  in  the 
mountain  ranges  bordering  on  Bolivia  up  to  its  dis- 
emboguement  into  the  sea  they  left  definitely  estab- 
lished that  it  was  in  those  Cordilleras  and  in  no  other 
part,  that  one  must  seek  the  origin  of  the  Sama  River. 
Otherwise,  the  extent  of  the  ceded  territory  would 
have  been  greater,  and,  consequently,  the  spirit  and 
letter  of  the  article  quoted  would  have  been  without 
effect. 

The  Peruvian  negotiators,  taking  into  account  the 
grievous  situation  in  which  they  were  placed  by  the 
necessity — justified  in  their  opinion — of  celebrating 
peace,  even  at  the  cost  of  heavy  sacrifices,  chose  to 
save  as  much  as  possible  of  their  native  land,  and 


17 

for  that  reason  they  undertook  a  redaction  which  left 
out  completely  the  territory  of  the  province  of  Tarata 
and  part  of  that  of  Tacna.  The  incidents  which  oc- 
curred before  the  signing  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  tes- 
tify thus.  It  seems  that  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Af- 
fairs of  Chile,  at  that  time  in  Lima,  demanded  that 
the  Eiver  Locumba  and  not  the  Sama  should  be  the 
northern  boundary  fixed  for  the  temporal  cession. 
Senores  Lavalle  and  Castro  Zaldivar,  first,  and  after- 
wards General  Iglesias,  refused  to  submit  to  this  last 
hour  demand  which  was  contrary  to  what  was  agreed 
before  between  Senores  Iglesias  and  Novoa.  This 
diplomat  recognized  the  justice  which  existed  for  the 
Peruvian  negotiators ;  but,  since  Sr.  Aldunate  insisted, 
he  had  to  confer  by  cable  with  His  Excellency  the 
President  of  Chile  who  answered  more  or  less  in 
these  terms:  "that  it  being  his  desire  to  arrive  at 
peace  the  dividing  line  indicated  by  the  Peruvian 
negotiators  would  be  accepted.' '  This  in  fact,  was 
done,  and  Paragraph  1  of  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of 
Peace  was  drawn  up  in  the  terms  so  often  quoted. 

Carlos  M.  Elias. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile  to  Minister 
of  Peru  in  Chile. 

[Translation.] 

Republic  of  Chile. 
Ministry  of  Foreign  Relations, 

Santiago,  April  14, 1887. 
Sir: 

I  have  had  the  honor  to  receive  in  due  course  Your 
Excellency's  dispatch  of  the  5th  ultimo  in  which  you 
were  pleased  to  enclose  a  memorandum  setting  forth 
the  reasons  on  which  the  Peruvian  Government  bases 


18 

its  request  for  the  rectification  of  the  northern  bound- 
ary of  the  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica  possessed 
by  Chile. 

The  perusal  of  that  document  and  a  study  of  the 
rough  draft  which  Your  Excellency  left  with  me  have 
had  the  effect  of  persuading  my  Government  more  and 
more  that  we  are  dealing  with  a  new  geographical 
question  the  solution  of  which  calls  for  exact  knowl- 
edge of  the  topography  of  those  territories,  which 
knowledge  is  not  now  possessed  by.  my  Government 
and  the  technical  departments  of  Chile. 

This  being  the  case,  and  having  found  nothing  in 
the  present  case  that  involves  the  interpretation  of  the 
Treaty  of  Peace,  the  language  of  which  is  clear  and 
the  fulfillment  of  which  has  always  been  the  desire 
of  my  Government,  Your  Excellency  will  permit  me 
to  insist  upon  the  propriety  of  an  arbitration,  which 
on  a  former  occasion  was  suggested  on  our  part 
to  Your  Excellency's  Government,  to  consist  of  a 
Chilean-Peruvian  expert  commission  which  would  re- 
pair to  the  points  in  question  and,  in  accordance  with 
the  principles  of  science,  investigate  and  fix  the  source 
and  course  of  the  Sama  River  for  the  effects  contem- 
plated in  the  Treaty  of  1883. 

If,  as  I  trust  it  may,  this  means  of  settlement  be 
favored  with  the  acquiescence  of  Your  Excellency's 
Government,  I  am  convinced  that  it  will  be  easy  to 
reach  an  agreement  with  respect  to  the  composition 
of  the  board  of  experts  and  other  details  of  pro- 
cedure. 

I  reiterate  the  assurances  of  my  highest  and  most 
distinguished  consideration,  and  remain  Your  Excel- 
lency's obedient  servant. 

Francisco  Freire. 
To  Sehor  Don  Carlos  M.  Elias, 

Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary 
of  Peru. 


19 

Minister   of  Peru  in   Chile   to   Minister  of  Foreign 
Relations  of  Peru. 


[Translation.] 


(Number  273.) 


Legation  of  Peeu  in  Chile. 
Santiago,  April  18,  1887. 
Mr.  Minister: 

On  the  16th  instant  I  received  the  reply  to  my  dis- 
patch addressed  to  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations 
of  this  Republic  (Chile),  dated  the  5th  ultimo,  request- 
ing the  evacuation  of  the  districts  in  Tarata  which 
Chile  retains  in  contravention  of  the  stipulations  of 
the  Treaty  of  Peace. 

Your  Excellency  will  note  from  the  copy  of  that 
dispatch  attached  hereto  that  its  contents  do  not  ac- 
cord with  what  was  stated  to  me  verbally  by  Senor 
Freire  at  my  conference  with  him  on  the  2nd  instant, 
of  which  I  gave  an  account  in  my  confidential  dis- 
patch, No.  263 ;  and  this  goes  to  show  that,  after  that 
conference,  and  evidently  with  the  approval  of  the 
President,  there  is  a  desire  to  give  another  trend  to 
the  question. 

I  have  been  unable  to  make  any  reply  to  Senor 
Freire,  as  I  would  have  wished  to  do,  respecting  his 
suggestion  to  appoint  a  mixed  expert  commission,  be- 
cause it  relates  to  a  proposal  made  prior  to  that  time 
to  the  Government  of  Peru  having  the  same  import 
which,  according  to  the  message  of  the  Supreme  Coun- 
cil of  Ministers  to  the  Extraordinary  Congress  of 
1886,  "was  the  object  of  certain  observations"  on 
the  part  of  our  Chancellery,  observations  as  to  which 
I  am  still  in  ignorance,  for,  unfortunately,  although 
I  have  asked  for  all  the  data  relating  to  the  Tarata 
question,  I  am  supplied  with  them  only  in  part. 


20 

Fearing,  therefore,  that  I  might  be  led  into  some 
inconsistency  and  being  unwilling,  on  the  other  hand, 
to  assume  in  such  a  delicate  matter  the  responsibility 
of  definitely  rejecting  Chile's  proposal,  I  confined  my- 
self to  the  reply  of  which  I  enclose  a  copy. 

In  view  of  these  documents,  I  beg  that  Your  Excel- 
lency will  arrange  with  His  Excellency  the  President 
of  the  Republic  what  is  best  to  be  done  in  the  matter 
and  that  you  will  be  good  enough  to  send  me  the 
precise  instructions  that  I  am  to  follow. 

May  God  protect  Your  Excellency, 

Carlos  M.  Elias. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru. 


Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Minister  of  Foreign 
Relations  of  Chile. 

[Translation.] 

Legation  of  Peru  in  Chile, 
Santiago,  April  19, 1887. 
Mr.  Minister: 

I  have  had  the  honor  to  receive  Your  Excellency's 
note  of  the  14th  instant  in  which  Your  Excellency  is 
good  enough  to  inform  me  that  your  Government  is 
of  the  opinion  that  the  question  relating  to  Tar  at  a 
and  the  boundary  fixed  for  the  territory  temporarily 
remaining  within  the  jurisdiction  of  Chile  is  merely 
geographical;  that  it  does  not  affect  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  and  that  it  would  be  well 
to  appoint  an  expert  Chilean-Peruvian  commission  to 
investigate  and  Hx  the  source  and  course  of  the  Sama 
River. 


21 

Without,  at  this  time,  entering  into  a  discussion  of 
the  reasons  adduced  by  Your  Excellency  in  support 
of  your  plan  for  the  settlement  of  the  Tarata  question, 
I  confine  myself  to  informing  Your  Excellency  that 
by  today's  mail  I  am  sending  to  Lima  a  copy  of  Your 
Excellency's  dispatch  and  that  as  soon  as  I  receive 
my  Government's  reply  T  shall  hasten  to  communi- 
cate it  to  you. 

Renewing  to  Your  Excellency  the  assurances  of  my 
esteem,  I  remain, 

Your  Excellency 's  obedient  servant, 

Caelos  M.  Elias. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations, 
of  the  Republic  of  Chile. 


Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Minister  of  Foreign  Re- 
lations of  Peru. 

[Translation] 

Legation  of  Pebu  in  Chile. 

Santiago,  June  10,  1890. 
Me.  Ministee: 

As  to  the  point  that  refers  to  Tacna  and  Arica, 
which  Senor  Matte  discussed  confidentially  with  you 
in  that  capital,  something  has  also  been  suggested 
to  me,  in  friendly  and  confidential  terms,  by  His  Ex- 
cellency the  President  of  the  Republic  and  by  the 
Minister  of  Foreign  Relations,  and  I  have  hastened 
to  make  it  known,  in  conformity  with  your  in- 
structions, that  Peru  desired  to  fulfill  strictly  the 
Treaty  of  Peace,  without  advancing  the  period  desig- 
nated in  it  for  the  plebiscite  that  is  to  settle  the  fate 
of  those  territories. 


22 

No  occasion  is  lost,  however,  to  show  how  great  is 
the  interest  of  the  present  Government  in  anticipating 
the  solution  of  this  delicate  subject  in  a  manner  favor- 
able to  Chile;  although  it  may  not  be  doubted  that 
it  wounds  the  legitimate  patriotic  sentiment  of  Peru. 

The  desire  to  retain  those  territories  is  general  in 
this  country;  but  there  are  not  lacking  intelligent 
people  who  behold  with  fear  these  schemes  for  territo- 
rial expansion — objectless  in  respect  of  the  progress 
and  security  of  Chile — which  tend  to  postpone  a  sin- 
cere reconciliation  with  Peru,  and  which  are  destined 
to  cause  deep  and  justifiable  alarm  throughout  Amer- 
ica. 

Becently,  in  respect  to  the  arrangement  referred  to 
by  the  Protocol  of  January  8  and  by  the  claims  which, 
to  that  effect,  were  presented  by  the  French  Legation 
to  this  Chancellery,  an  impetus  has  been  given  officially, 
although  in  a  confidential  manner,  to  this  same  ques- 
tion of  Tacna  and  Arica,  the  representative  of  Chile 
in  Lima  being  instructed  to  communicate  to  the 
Government  of  Peru  that  if  it  were  disposed  to  con- 
sent to  the  immediate  cession  of  those  provinces,  that 
of  Chile  would  have  no  objection  to  paying  four 
millions  more  than  the  sum  stipulated  in  the  Treaty 
of  Anoon. 

It  has  been  sought  to  lend  respectability  to  this 
proposal,  which,  in  my  judgment,  is  in  its  essence 
derogatory  to  the  dignity  of  Peru,  by  attributing  to 
it  the  friendly  design  of  aiding  her  in  her  arrange- 
ments with  her  supposed  French  creditors,  whose 
claims  are  supported  by  the  Chancellery  at  Paris,  and 
Monsieur  Bacourt  is  made  to  appear  to  suggest  this 
procedure,  which  is  contrary  to  every  international 
practice. 


23 

When  His  Excellency  Senor  Mackenna  informed  me, 
in  a  confidential  manner,  of  what  was  on  foot  in  this 
respect,  I  hastened  to  reiterate  to  him  the  declarations 
that  I  had  already  made  to  the  head  of  the  state, 
and  I  added  to  him  that  I  deemed  the  conduct  of  the 
French  Plenipotentiary  incorrect;  but,  as  the  Chilean 
representative  in  Lima  must  be  dealing  directly  with 
you,  I  have  had  no  occasion  since  then  to  discuss 
this  subject. 

At  all  events,  your  enlightened  judgment  is  not 
ignorant  of  how  important  it  is  to  Peru  and  to  the 
maintenance  of  her  relations  with  Chile  to  regard  with 
a  patriotic  and  far-seeing  mind  the  dangers  that  may 
supervene  if,  on  the  part  of  this  country,  there  is 
not  a  radical  change  of  policy  as  to  this  delicate  situ- 
ation. 

The  demand  relative  to  Chile's  unwarranted  oc- 
cupation of  a  part  of  the  province  of  Tarata  has 
not  prospered  at  all,  owing  to  the  fact  that  a  reply 
from  that  office  is  pending  in  reference  to  a  proposal 
made  by  Chile  at  the  time  of  my  first  mission.  Never- 
theless, as  there  has  been  presented  to  the  Congress 
a  plan  of  a  municipal  law  by  which  several  depart- 
ments were  organized  in  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and 
Arica,  after  a  consultation  with  you,  I  formulated 
the  respective  remonstrances,  calling  the  attention  of 
this  Government  that,  at  the  proper  time,  it  should 
communicate  them  to  the  Congress,  inasmuch  as  it  is 
contrary  to  international  law  and  to  the  sovereignty 
of  Peru  to  legislate  regarding  territories,  the  pre- 
carious possession  of  which  places  Chile  in  an  ex- 
ceptional position,  and  still  more  so  in  the  case  of 
Tarata,  since  there  was  pending  a  demand  of  the 
Peruvian  Government  in  respect  of  the  return  of  that 
portion  of  her  territory,  which  was  not  included  in 
the  temporary  cession  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 


24 

Hitherto  I  have  received  no  reply  from  this  Chancel- 
lery, but  if,  in  spite  of  my  remonstrances,  this  part 
of  the  plan  of  a  municipal  law  were  to  be  approved 
in  the  Chambers,  I  should  follow  your  instructions 
and  formulate,  in  the  most  formal  manner,  the  re- 
spective protest. 

God  have  you,  Mr.  Minister,  in  his  keeping. 

Cablos  M.  Elias. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  to  Minister  of 
Chile  in  Peru. 

[Translation..] 
(Number  16) 

MINISTRY  OF   FOREIGN   RELATIONS. 

Lima,  August  10,  1892. 
Mr.  Minister: 

In  conformity  with  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of 
Peace,  signed  between  Peru  and  Chile  in  the  year 
1883,  the  territory  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  were  to  continue  to  be  possessed  by  Chile  and 
subject  to  Chilean  legislation  and  authorities  for  the 
period  of  ten  years,  reckoned  from  the  ratification  of 
the  said  Treaty.  After  the  expiration  of  this  period, 
a  plebiscite  would  decide,  by  popular  vote,  whether 
the  territory  should  remain  definitively  under  the  do- 
minion and  sovereignty  of  Chile,  or  whether  it  should 
continue  to  be  a  part  of  the  Peruvian  territory.  A 
special  protocol  would  determine  the  form  in  which 
the  plebiscite  shall  be  effected,  and  the  terms  and 
periods  for  the  payment  of  the  ten  millions  stipulated 
for  the  ransom  of  the  two  provinces. 


25 

The  negotiators  of  that  Treaty  did  not  adjust  the 
protocol,  and,  as  the  date  on  which  the  period  of  ten 
years  will  expire,  reckoned  from  the  ratification,  which 
took  place  on  March  28,  1884,  is  near  at  hand,  the 
Peruvian  Government  considers  it  necessary  to  proceed 
to  the  negotiation  of  the  said  protocol  to  which  I 
therefore  invite  Your  Excellency  to  confer  on  the  sub- 
ject and  I  trust  Your  Excellency  will  indicate  to  me 
the  day  on  which  our  conferences  may  begin. 

I  reiterate  to  Your  Excellency  the  assurances  of 
my  highest  and  most  distinguished  consideration. 

E.  Larrabure  y  Unanue. 

To  His  Excellency  Senor  Don  Javier  Vial  Solar, 
Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary 
of  Chile. 


Minister  of  Chile  in  Peru  to  Minister  of  Foreign  Re- 
lations of  Peru. 

[Translation.] 
(Number  16) 

Legation  of  Chile. 

Lima,  August  11,  1892. 
Mr.  Minister: 

I  have  received  Your  Excellency's  communication 
of  this  date,  in  which  Your  Excellency  informs  me 
that  inasmuch  as  no  protocol  as  to  the  form  in  which 
the  plebiscite  that  will  decide  as  to  the  definitive  pos- 
session of  the  departments  of  Tacna  and  Arica  has 
been  adjusted,  the  Peruvian  Government  considers . 
it  necessary  to  proceed  to  the  negotiation  of  the  said 
protocol,  and  it  invites  me  to  the  effect,  hoping  that 
I  might  indicate  to  Your  Excellency  the  day  on  which 
our  conferences  may  begin. 


26 

In  reply,  I  am  pleased  to  say  to  Your  Excellency 
that  I  shall  bring  to  the  knowledge  of  my  Government 
the  communication  that  I  am  answering  as  soon  as 
possible,  in  order  that  it  may  take  it  into  consider- 
ation, according  to  Your  Excellency's  desires. 

I  offer  to  Your  Excellency  the  assurances  of  my 
highest  and  most  distinguished  consideration. 

Javier  Vial  Solar. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  to  Minister  of 
Chile  in  Peru. 

[Translation.] 

Ministry  of  Foreign  Relations. 

Lima,  September  5,  1892. 

My  Esteemed  Friend: 

Bearing  in  mind  the  desire  that  you  have  expressed 
to  me  on  several  occasions  as  to  relations  between 
Chile  and  Peru,  I  have  formulated  the  following  bases 
of  an  arrangement,  after  conferring  with  my  col- 
leagues, which  may  serve  for  discussion  with  the  re- 
presentative of  Chile. 

I  beg  you  to  be  pleased  to  bring  it  to  the  knowledge 
of  your  Government. 

Your  most  attentive  and  faithful  servant. 

E.  Larrabure  y  Unanue. 
Senor  Don  Javier  Vial  Solar, 

Lima. 


27 

Enclosuke. 

Note  of  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  to  Min- 
ister of  Chile  in  Peru. 

[Translation.] 
Memoeandum. 

Lima,  September  5,  1892. 

The  products  of  Pern  and  Chile  will  be  imported 
free  of  duties  through  the  ports  of  each  country,  and 
in  the  places  of  consumption  they  will  pay  no  other 
duties  than  those  that  affect  similar  national  products. 

The  merchant  vessels  of  the  two  countries  will 
enjoy,  in  the  ports  of  each  of  them,  the  same  privileges 
and  exemptions  as  the  national  vessels. 

The  Government  of  Chile  dis occupies  the  territory 
of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  which  will  con- 
tinue under  the  sovereignty  and  dominion  of  Peru. 

The  Government  of  Peru  obligates  itself: 

1.  To  concede  to  the  Republic  of  Bolivia  one  common 
custom-house,  in  which  the  Peruvian  tariff  regulations 
will  obtain,  at  the  port  of  Arica.  The  net  revenues 
of  that  custom-house  will  be  distributed  in  the  fol- 
lowing manner:  A  third  part  to  Bolivia;  a  second 
part  to  continue  the  cancelation  of  the  Chilean- 
Bolivian  debt;  and  the  rest  will  be  applied  by  Peru 
to  the  payment  of  sums  due  on  her  foreign  indebted- 
ness, legally  constituted,  according  to  the  Treaty  of 
Ancon. 

2.  To  facilitate  the  construction  of  one  or  more 
railways  and  telegraph  lines,  by  private  enterprises, 
which  shall  connect  the  port  of  Arica  or  the  city  of 
Tacna  with  the  territory  of  Tarapaca  or  the  frontier  of 
Bolivia,  with  no  other  burden  or  other  restrictions 
than  those  provided  by  the  respective  regulations  of 
Peru. 


28 

The  Governments  of  Pern  and  Chile  will  denounce 
all  the  treaties  of  commerce  they  may  have  in  force  at 
present  and  the  stipulations  of  which,  in  the  judgment 
of  both,  may  be  opposed  to  the  present  convention. 

They  will  invite,  by  common  consent,  the  contiguous 
South  American  nations  to  the  conclusion  of  special 
treaties  of  commerce,  on  the  basis  of  mutual  com- 
pensations in  free  exchange. 

A  regulative  diplomatic  agreement — for  which  the 
Executive  Powers  of  the  two  Eepublics  are  to  be 
authorized  by  their  respective  Congresses — will  serve 
as  a  complement  to  this  convention. 


Minister  of  Chile  in  Peru  to  Minister  of  Foreign  Af- 
fairs of  Peru. 

[Translation.] 

Legation  of  Chile. 

Lima,  September  5,  1892. 
Dear  Sir: 

I  have  received  your  communication  of  this  date, 
with  which  you  send  the  bases  of  a  plan  of  a  treaty 
between  Peru  and  Chile,  on  which  the  representatives 
of  the  two  countries  could  proceed  to  a  discussion, 
and  which  you,  with  your  colleagues  of  the  Cabinet, 
request  me  to  bring  to  the  knowledge  of  my  Govern- 
ment. 

In  reply,  I  am  pleased  to  say  that  I  see  no  objection 
to  acceding  to  what  you  request,  and  that,  as  soon  as 
possible,  I  shall  transmit  to  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Eelations  your  communication  and  the  memorandum 
that  accompanies  it. 

Your  very  attentive  and  faithful  servant, 

Javier  Vial  Solar. 

Senor  Don  Eugenio  Larrabure  y  Unanue, 
Lima. 


29 

Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  to  Minister  of 
Chile  in  Peru. 

[Translation.] 
(Number  9.) 

Ministry  of  Foreign   Relations. 

Lima,  April  4,  1893. 
Mr.  Minister: 

As  the  period  of  ten  years  set  by  Article  III  of  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon  is  about  to  expire  and  as  the  de- 
finitive fate  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica, 
in  respect  of  their  future  nationality,  is  to  be  decided 
by  means  of  a  plebiscite,  my  Government  deems  it 
necessary  to  proceed  to  the  adoption  of  the  special 
protocol  to  which  the  second  part  of  the  afore- 
mentioned article  refers. 

My  Government,  impelled  by  a  sense  of  this  neces- 
sity, saw  fit  to  invite  Your  Excellency,  under  date  of 
August  10  of  last  year,  through  the  medium  of  one 
of  my  predecessors,  to  the  negotiation  of  the  protocol 
mentioned,  and  Your  Excellency  was  then  so  good  as 
to  reply  that  he  would  bring  that  communication 
to  the  knowledge  of  the  Chilean  Government  in  order 
that  it  might  be  taken  into  consideration. 

As  I  suppose  that,  after  the  time  elapsed,  Your 
Excellency  is  advised  of  the  instructions  that  the 
Chancellery  of  Santiago  has  seen  fit  to  impart  to  him 
as  to  that  particular,  I  am  pleased  to  invite  him  anew 
to  a  negotiation  of  the  aforementioned  protocol;  and, 
to  that  end,  Your  Excellency  will  have  the  goodness 
to  indicate  the  day  on  which  we  may  begin  the  re- 
spective conferences. 

I  take  this  new  opportunity  to  reiterate  to  Your 
Excellency  the  protestations  of  my  highest  and  most 
distinguished  consideration. 

Cesareo  Chacaltana. 
To  His  Excellency  Senor  Don  Javier  Vial  Solar, 

Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary 
of  Chile. 


30 

Minister   of  Chile  in  Peru  to  Minister   of  Foreign 
Affairs  of  Peru. 

[Translation.] 
(Number  11.) 

Legation  of  Chile. 

Lima,  April  8,  1893. 
Mr.  Minister: 

In  reply  to  the  verbal  communication  and  attached 
memorandum,  which,  under  date  of  September  5  of 
last  year,  were  addressed  to  me  by  Senor  Larrabure 
y  Unanue,  at  the  time  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations, 
my  Government  instructs  me  to  express  to  you  the 
opinion  that  has  been  reached  as  to  the  proposals 
to  which  the  said  documents  refer. 

My  Government  is  pleased  to  learn  that  there  still 
exists  in  Peru  the  conviction  that  the  industrial  and 
commercial  future  of  the  two  Republics  depends,  in 
a  large  measure,  on  the  facilities  and  stimulus  that 
may  be  afforded  and  lent  by  the  legislation  of  the 
two  countries  to  the  exchange  of  their  chief  products. 
Chile  is  Peru's  natural  market  in  the  different  lines 
of  articles  of  consumption  of  first  necessity,  as  Peru 
is  Chile's  in  the  same  respect.  It  would  be  idle  to 
enter  on  an  investigation  with  the  narrow  criterion 
of  the  merchant  as  to  which  may  be  today  or  within 
a  few  years,  the  more  favored  by  a  system  of  re- 
ciprocal commercial  concessions. 

The  very  importance  and  nature  of  this  subject 
counsel,  in  the  judgment  of  my  Government,  that  it 
should  neither  be  dealt  with  outside  of  its  natural 
realm  nor  be  complicated  with  an  affair  of  so  diverse 
a  character,  such  as  that  which  has  to  do  with  the 
definitive  nationality  of  the  departments  of  Tacna 
and  Arica. 


31 

My  Government,  consequently,  will  always  accept 
with  pleasure  any  indication  of  Your  Excellency's  that 
may  have  as  its  object  the  opening  of  negotiations 
for  the  establishment  of  a  system  of  reciprocal  com- 
mercial exemptions  and  privileges,  and  it  will  use 
every  favorable  opportunity  to  foster,  on  its  part, 
proceedings  to  that  effect  with  the  enlightened  Govern- 
ment of  Peru;  but  it  holds,  at  the  same  time,  that 
there  exists  no  motive  that  counsels  the  treatment  of 
this  subject  in  connection  with  the  questions  that 
relate  to  the  definitive  possession  of  the  provinces  of 
Tacna  and  Arica. 

In  obedience  to  a  sentiment  of  loyalty,  I  must  make 
it  clear  to  Your  Excellency  that  it  does  not  come 
within  the  designs  of  the  policy  of  my  Government  to 
renounce  the  expectations  which  the  Treaty  of  Ancon 
assured  to  Chile  as  to  the  acquisition  of  the  afore- 
mentioned departments. 

Tn  transmitting  this  reply,  I  am  pleased  to  follow 
the  express  instructions  of  my  Government  to  make 
known  to  Your  Excellency  its  appreciation  of  the  com- 
munication to  which  allusion  has  been  made  and  its 
sentiments  of  deference  and  friendship  toward  Your 
Excellency's  Government. 

I  take  this  opportunity  to  reiterate  to  Your  Ex- 
cellency, the  assurances  of  my  most  respectful  and 
distinguished  consideration. 

Javier  Vial  Solar. 

To  His  Excellency  Senor  Don  Cesareo  Chacaltana, 
Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru. 


32 

Minister  of  Chile  in  Peru  to  Minister  of  Foreign  Re- 
lations of  Peru. 

[Translation.] 
(Number  19.) 

Legation  of  Chile. 

Lima,  April  8,  1893. 
Me.  Minister: 

I  have  received  the  esteemed  communication  dated 
the  fourth  of  the  current  month,  by  which  Your  Ex- 
cellency, at  the  .  same  time  that  he  invites  me  to  a 
conference  for  the  discussion  of  the  manner  of  effect- 
ing the  plebiscite  that  is  to  decide  as  to  the  definitive 
nationality  of  the  departments  of  Tacna  and  Arica, 
adds  also  that,  as  some  months  have  passed  since  the 
day  on  which  a  similar  invitation  was  addressed  to 
me  by  one  of  Your  Excellency's  predecessors,  it  is 
to  be  supposed  that  I  have  already  received  the  re- 
spective instructions  from  the  Chancellery  of  Santiago 
as  to  the  consideration  of  this  important  affair  with 
Your  Excellency. 

I  should  take  occasion,  Mr.  Minister,  to  recall  past 
events,  which  relate  to  the  esteemed  communication 
to  which  I  am  replying,  if  the  allusion  that  Your  Ex- 
cellency makes  to  the  invitation  that  was  addressed 
to  me  with  the  same  object  by  one  of  his  predecessors 
in  the  Ministry  did  not  perhaps  reveal  an  erroneous 
opinion  regarding  the  interest  and  solicitude  with 
which  both  the  Chancellery  of  Santiago  and  its 
representatives  in  Peru,  sought  constantly  an  agree- 
ment regarding  this  subject  with  Your  Excellency's 
Government. 

As  to  what  concerns  my  honorable  predecessors  in 
this  Legation,  there  must  be  some  documents  in  the 
archives  of  that  Ministry  that  could  make  clear  to 
Your  Excellency  the  earnest  desire  with  which  my 


33 

Government  has  attempted  on  several  occasions  to 
reach,  in  reference  to  this  point,  a  proper  solution 
and  one  in  harmony  with  the  well  recognized  interests 
of  the  two  countries;  and  as  for  myself,  it  is  hardly 
necessary  for  me  to  say  to  Your  Excellency  what  your 
predecessors  themselves  could,  better  perhaps  than 
I,  explain. 

Indeed,  not  on  one,  but  on  many  occasions  have  I 
had  the  honor  to  discuss  with  Your  Excellency  's  pred- 
ecessors the  manner  in  which  this  delicate  affair  could 
be  settled.  Unfortunately,  my  efforts  did  not  lead  to 
any  practical  results,  because  the  ideas  introduced  into 
the  discussion  were  not  well  received  by  one  or  the 
other  of  the  parties  because  the  natural  development 
to  which  they  lent  themselves  was  interrupted  because 
of  a  change  in  the  personnel  of  the  Cabinet  or  because 
of  some  occurrence  of  another  nature.  The  former 
invitation  itself,  which  Your  Excellency  recalls  in  the 
esteemed  communication  to  which  I  am  replying,  is 
a  good  proof  of  what  I  have  said,  since  it  gave  place 
to  several  conferences  on  the  subject  between  Senor 
Larrabure  y  Unanue  and  myself. 

So  then — and  replying  to  the  invitation  that  Your 
Excellency  addresses  to  me  with  a  view  to  renewing 
the  pending  negotiations — I  am  pleased  to  be  able 
to  say  to  you  that  I  shall  do  myself  the  honor  to 
accept  it  on  the  day  and  at  the  hour  that  Your  Ex- 
cellency may  see  fit  to  indicate  to  me. 

I  take,  Mr.  Minister,  this  opportunity  to  reiterate 
to  Your  Excellency  the  sentiments  of  my  highest  and 
most  distinguished  consideration. 

Javier  Vial  Solar. 
To  His  Excellency, 

Senor  Doctor  Cesareo  Chacaltana, 

Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru. 


34 

First  Conference  Betiveen  Minister  of  Chile  in  Peru 
and  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Peru. 

[Translation.] 

[Lima,  April  18,  1893.] 

Met  in  the  Ministry  of  Foreign  Relations  Senor 
Don  Cesareo  Chacaltana,  Minister  of  the  Department, 
and  Senor  Don  Javier  Vial  Solar,  Envoy  Extra- 
ordinary and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Chile,  for 
the  purpose  of  opening  negotiations  conducive  to  the 
adoption  of  the  protocol  to  which  reference  is  made 
in  the  second  part  of  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of 
Peace  and  Amity  signed  on  October  20,  1883,  and  they 
agreed  to  place  on  record  in  the  present  minutes  the 
declarations  that  are  set  forth  as  follows: 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  said  that  the 
Government  of  Peru,  in  view  of  the  proximity  of  the 
expiration  of  the  period,  after  the  termination  of 
which  the  plebiscite  mentioned  in  the  article  alluded 
to  ought  to  be  effected,  and  of  the  necessity  that 
the  respective  protocol  should  be  approved  by  the 
Congresses  of  the  two  Republics,  deemed  it  opportune 
to  proceed  to  its  discussion,  and  that,  with  this  object 
in  view,  the  Minister  had  invited  the  Minister  of  Chile, 
who  had  seen  fit  to  reply  favorably. 

The  Minister  of  Chile  said  that,  in  truth,  as  he 
had  already  had  the  honor  to  communicate  in  the  note 
of  the  eighth  of  the  current  month,  the  Government 
of  Chile  saw  no  objection  to  proceeding  to  nego- 
tiations. 

Then  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  explained 
that  there  existed  an  antecedent  in  respect  of  which 
concrete  opinions  had  been  expressed  by  the  two 
Governments.  When  Senor  Larrabure  y  Unanue  was 
in  charge  of  this  office,  there  was  proposed  to  the 


35 

Government  of  Chile,  in  a  confidential  manner  and 
through  the  medium  of  its  representative  in  Lima  a 
plan  of  agreement  that  contained  certain  bases  for 
a  treaty  of  free  commercial  exchange  between  the  two 
countries  and  for  the  return  to  Peru  of  the  provinces 
of  Tacna  and  Arica  under  the  conditions  therein  in- 
dicated. 

In  a  note,  recently  addressed  to  this  Ministry  by 
the  representative  of  Chile,  the  latter  had  made  it 
clear  that,  although  his  Government  was  disposed  to 
conclude  a  commercial  treaty  with  Peru,  it  did  not 
deem  it  expedient  that  an  undertaking  of  this  nature 
should  be  complicated  with  the  one  relative  to  the 
definitive  nationality  of  the  territories  mentioned.  For 
this  reason  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  con- 
sidered it  necessary  to  explain  that,  if  the  ob- 
servations of  the  Government  of  Chile  had  been  con- 
fined to  this  subject,  there  would  assuredly  have  been 
no  obstacle  to  separating  the  subjects  and  to  entering 
on  two  different  negotiations,  the  results  of  which 
would  be,  in  turn,  incorporated  in  different  protocols. 
But,  the  reply  of  the  Minister  of  Chile  was  not 
confined  to  opposing  this  separation,  for  he  said 
besides,  that  the  Government  of  Chile  did  not 
think  of  renouncing  the  expectations  which,  in 
its  view,  the  Treaty  of  Peace  held  out  to  Chile 
in  respect  of  the  acquisition  of  Tacna  and  Arica: 
a  declaration  that  was  equivalent,  in  the  judgment 
of  the  Government  of  Peru,  to  regarding  the  nego- 
tiation in  question  as  terminated  for  the  present,  in 
order  to  make  room  for  the  discussion  of  the  protocol 
provided  for  in  the  aforementioned  Article  III  of  the 
Treaty. 

The  Minister  of  Chile  replied  that,  as  the  Minister 
of  Foreign  Relations  had  just  stated,  that  negotiation 


36 

ought  to  be  looked  upon  as  ended  for  the  present,  and 
that  the  discussion  ought  to  be  confined  to  the  special 
protocol  of  the  plebiscite,  if  another  procedure  were 
not  accepted  by  the  two  parties;  but  that,  even  if 
they  entered  into  this  negotiation,  he  thought  it  would 
not  constitute  an  obstacle  that  would  prevent  the  two 
Governments,  as  the  Government  of  Chile  had  sug- 
gested, from  occupying  themselves  also  with  their  com- 
mercial regulations,  which  were  so  important  to  the 
future  of  each  country  and  might  so  greatly  influence 
their  progress  and  growth. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  explained  that 
the  Peruvian  Government  did  not  renounce  the  pur- 
pose of  promoting,  when  the  opportunity  should  arise, 
commercial  agreements  with  Chile  on  liberal  bases 
and  with  reciprocal  advantage;  and  that,  with  this 
in  view,  he  was  collecting  data  and  information  on 
the  subject,  in  order  to  give  them  concrete  and  de- 
finite form. 

After  what  has  been  set  forth,  the  negotiators 
agreed  to  proceed  to  discuss  the  bases  of  the  protocol 
that  occasioned  this  conference. 

Cesareo  Chacaltana. 
Javier  Vial  Solar. 
Lima,  April  18,  1893. 


Second  Conference  Between  Minister  of  Foreign  Re- 
lations of  Peru  and  Minister  of  Chile  in  Peru. 

[Translation.] 

[Lima,  June  19,  1893.] 

In  the  Ministry  of  Foreign  Relations  met,  under 
date  of  this  day,  the  Minister  of  the  Department,  Don 
Jose  Mariano  Jimenez,  and  the  Envoy  Extraordinary 


37 

and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Chile,  Don  Javier 
Vial  Solar,  to  continue  the  conferences  undertaken  for 
the  drafting  of  the  protocol  to  which  the  plebiscite  pro- 
vided for  in  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  is  to  be 
subject. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  declared  that  the 
first  article  of  the  convention  ought  to  determine  the 
authority  under  whose  control  the  plebiscite  should  be 
effected  and  that,  since  it  was  agreed  that  the  present 
occupation  of  Chile  should  continue  for  ten  years,  he 
proposed  that,  on  the  expiration  of  this  period,  the 
possession  of  the  temporarily  occupied  provinces  be  re- 
turned to  Peru,  as  they  belong  to  her  by  reason  of 
rights  that  grow  out  of  her  character  as  direct  sover- 
eign. 

The  Minister  of  Chile  took  the  opposite  ground,  as 
he  denied  the  sovereignty  of  Peru  over  the  provinces 
mentioned  and  as,  in  the  judgment  of  his  Government, 
it  might  by  no  means  be  deduced  from  the  Treaty  that 
the  said  territories  must  be  returned  to  the  possession 
of  Peru  on  the  ground  of  the  mere  fact  of  the  expira- 
tion of  the  ten  years. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  replied  that  the 
proposal  of  the  Minister  of  Chile  was  not  in  confor- 
mity with  the  letter  of  the  Treaty,  which  limited  the 
period  of  occupation  to  ten  years,  after  the  expiration 
of  which  a  plebiscite  would  be  effected,  that  is,  when 
the  Chilean  authorities  did  not  exercise  dominion  over 
the  territories  mentioned ;  that  the  latter  were  qualified 
in  the  Treaty  as  simple  possessors ;  that  Peru  had  not 
ceased  to  be  the  sovereign,  both  because  of  this  circum- 
stance and  because  sovereignty  is  lost  only  by  a  treaty 
of  territorial  cession,  a  character  not  possessed  by  this 
part  of  that  of  Ancon. 


38 

The  Minister  of  Chile  replied  that  he  could  not  ac- 
cept this  interpretation,  since  the  date  specified  in  con- 
nection with  the  ten  years  referred  only  to  the  time  of 
the  plebiscite  and  no  more ;  that  the  occupation  of  Chile 
until  this  act  should  be  accomplished  definitively  and 
the  obligations  of  the  Treaty  fulfilled,  was  taken  for 
granted  in  the  article  referred  to  by  the  Minister  of 
Foreign  Eelations;  and  that,  finally,  the  very  nature 
of  this  Treaty  is  tantamount  to  a  territorial  cession 
subject  to  the  condition  of  the  vote  of  the  inhabitants. 
After  a  prolonged  discussion,  and  as  there  was  no 
agreement  between  the  Plenipotentiaries  in  reference 
to  their  contradictory  proposals,  it  was  decided  to 
make  a  record  of  them  and  to  adjourn  the  conference. 

Jose  Mariano  Jimenez, 
Javier  Vial  Solar. 
Lima,  June  19, 1893. 


Third  Conference  Between  Minister  of  Foreign  Rela- 
tions of  Peru  and  Minister  of  Chile  in  Peru. 

[Translation.] 

[Lima,  June  30,  1893.] 

Met  in  the  Ministry  of  Foreign  Relations,  the  Minis- 
ter of  the  Department,  Don  Jose  Mariano  Jimenez, 
and  the  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Chile,  Don  Javier 
Vial  Solar,  to  continue  to  discuss  the  manner  in  which 
is  to  be  effected  the  plebiscite  referred  to  in  Article  III 
of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  and  they  voted  to  record  the 
following : 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  said  that,  as  the 
Minister  of  Chile  had  announced  that  the  Gov- 
ernment of  his  country  would  not  deliver  to  Peru  the 


39 

territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica  on  March  28,  1894,  on 
which  date  would  expire  the  period  of  temporary  pos- 
session granted  to  that  country  by  Clause  III  of  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon,  he  proposed,  as  a  compromise,  that 
the  said  territories  should  be  delivered,  on  the  date 
mentioned,  to  a  third  power,  designated  by  common 
consent,  under  whose  auspices  the  plebiscite  would  be 
effected,  and  which  would  immediately  return  them  to 
Chile  or  Peru,  according  to  what  the  result  of  the  vote 
might  be. 

The  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Chile  replied  that 
the  proposal  of  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  was, 
in  the  judgment  of  his  Government,  unacceptable,  in 
view  of  the  reasons  that  substantiated  the  right  of 
Chile  to  occupy  the  disputed  territories  before  and 
after  the  plebiscite  and  until  Peru  should  fulfill  all  the 
obligations  that  Clause  III  of  the  Treaty  imposed  on 
her. 

After  a  long  discussion  on  the  subject  and  as  no 
agreement  was  reached,  the  conference  was  adjourned. 

Jose  Mariano  Jimenez, 
Javier  Vial  Solar. 
Lima,  June  30,  1893. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  to  Minister  of 
Chile  in  Peru. 

[Translation.] 
(Number  19.) 

Ministry  of  Foreign  Eelations. 

Lima,  August  19,  1893. 
Mr.  Minister: 

As  the  Government  of  Peru  desires  to  reach  an  un- 
derstanding in  respect  of  the  bases  of  the  protocol 


40 

that  is  to  regulate  the  plebiscite  that  is  to  decide  as  to 
the  definitive  possession  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and 
Arica,  and  as  this  agreement  has  not  been  secured 
hitherto,  because  of  the  different  interpretations  that 
the  parties  give  to  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace 
of  1883,  I  am  pleased  to  transmit  to  Your  Excellency 
the  attached  memorandum,  the  proposals  of  which 
reconcile,  in  my  judgment,  the  demands  presented  in 
our  former  conferences  and  look  to  the  fulfillment  of 
the  stipulations  in  force  between  the  two  countries. 

I  beg  Your  Excellency,  if  he  deem  it  proper  to  do  so, 
to  communicate  this  memorandum  to  the  Government 
of  Chile  in  order  that  it  may  have  the  goodness  to  say 
whether  or  not  on  these  bases  a  definitive  arrange- 
ment might  be  adjusted. 

With  sentiments  of  the  highest  consideration,  I  sign 
myself  as 

Your  Excellency's  attentive  and  faithful  servant, 

Jose  Mariano  Jimenez. 

To  His  Excellency  Don  Javier  Vial  Solar, 
Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister 
Plenipotentiary  of  Chile. 


Enclosure  . 

Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  to  Minister  of 
Chile  in  Peru. 

[Translation.! 

Memorandum. 

Lima,  August  19, 1893. 

Inasmuch  as  an  accord  was  not  reached  between 
the  Plenipotentiaries  of  Peru  and  Chile  as  to  which  of 
these  Governments  has  the  right  to  occupy  the  terri- 


41 

tories  of  Tacna  and  Arica  during  the  plebiscite  to 
which  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  relates,  it  is 
agreed  that  Peru  will  possess  the  zone  comprised  be- 
tween the  Sama  Eiver  and  the  Vitor  ravine  and  that 
Chile  will  continue  in  the  tenancy  of  the  zone  between 
this  ravine  and  that  of  Camarones. 

On  March  28,  1894,  will  be  delivered  to  Peru  the  part 
of  the  territory  that  belongs  to  her,  and  within  the  sub- 
sequent thirty  days  each  country  will  decide  as  to  the 
procedure  for  the  vote  in  her  respective  zone,  she 
being  free  to  designate  the  personal  qualifications  of 
the  voters.  The  plebiscite  will  be  effected  before  Oc- 
tober 1,  1894. 

If  the  vote  should  be  favorable  to  Peru  in  both  sec- 
tions, she  will  pay  to  Chile  the  indemnity  agreed  on 
in  the  Treaty  in  the  following  manner : 

The  natural  and  manufactured  products  of  Chile 
and  their  respective  containers  will  be  brought  in  free 
of  import  duties  through  the  custom-houses  of  Peru 
for  twenty-five  years,  and  they  will  not  pay  in  the  terri- 
tory of  the  latter  country  other  consumption  taxes 
than  those  actually  in  force  for  similar  national  prod- 
ucts. 

If  the  plebiscite  should  favor  Peru  in  the  zone  from 
the  Sama  to  the  Vitor  only,  the  proportionate  indem- 
nity will  be  paid  in  the  same  way,  but  with  a  reduction 
of  the  period  of  free  entry  to  twenty  years. 

Lima,  August  19,  1893. 


42 

Minister  of  Chile  in  Peril  to  Minister  of  Foreign  Rela- 
tions of  Peru. 

[Translation.] 
(Number  19.) 

Legation  of  Chile. 

Lima,  August  19,  1893. 
Mr.  Minister: 

I  have  received  the  esteemed  communication  of  this 
day  in  which  Your  Excellency  transmits  to  me  a  memo- 
randum of  proposals,  which,  in  Your  Excellency's 
judgment,  reconcile  the  demands  presented  in  our 
former  conferences  with  a  view  to  the  fulfillment  of 
the  stipulations  that  prevail  between  the  two  coun- 
tries as  to  the  manner  in  which  is  to  be  effected  the 
plebiscite  to  which  Clause  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace 
of  1883  refers. 

Without  being  able  to  express  at  once  any  opinion 
as  to  the  proposals  mentioned,  I  am  pleased,  never- 
theless, to  inform  you  that  by  the  post  of  to-day  I  shall 
make  my  Government  acquainted  with  their  contents, 
in  order  that,  as  soon  as  possible,  it  may  decide  as  to 
what  may  be  expedient. 

I  take  this  opportunity  to  reiterate  to  Your  Excel- 
lency the  assurances  of  my  high  and  distinguished  con- 
sideration. 

Javier  Vial  Solar. 
To  His  Excellency  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations, 

Doctor  Don  Jose  Mariano  Jimenez. 


43 

Fourth  Conference  Between  Minister  of  Foreign  Rela- 
tions of  Peru  and  Minister  of  Chile  in  Peru. 

[Translation.] 

[Lima,  September  16,  1893.] 

Met  at  the  office  of  the  Ministry  of  Foreign  Kela- 
tions,  the  Minister  of  the  Department,  Don  Jose 
Mariano  Jimenez,  and  the  Minister  Plenipotentiary 
and  Envoy  Extraordinary  of  Chile,  Don  Javier  Vial 
Solar,  the  former  said  that,  in  the  several  conferences 
held  with  the  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Chile  to 
agree  on  the  bases  of  the  protocol  that  should  serve 
for  the  plebiscite  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  he  had  striven 
to  convince  the  latter  that  the  right  of  suffrage  be- 
longed to  none  except  Peruvians  born  and  residing  in 
the  territories  occupied  by  Chile;  that,  as  to  the  age 
of  the  Peruvians,  although  he  had  reasons  to  maintain 
that  from  the  age  of  eighteen  men  could  be  held  re- 
sponsible for  their  actions,  and,  consequently,  that  they 
ought  not  to  be  denied  the  right  to  designate  the  Peru- 
vian or  the  Chilean  nationality  in  favor  of  which  they 
might  wish  to  choose,  he  agreed  to  establish  this  right 
for  those  of  over  twenty-one  years,  an  age  required  by 
the  laws  of  Peru  for  the  exercise  of  citizenship ;  that, 
as  the  Minister  of  Chile  had  not  accepted  these  ideas, 
and  as  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  had  not  de- 
sired to  continue  the  negotiation,  if  an  agreement 
could  not  be  reached  in  respect  of  the  authority  that 
was  to  control  the  territories  during  the  plebiscite,  he 
proposed  today  that  if  the  Minister  of  Chile  did  not 
object  to  leaving  on  record  the  declarations  made  pre- 
viously, contrary  to  the  proposals  indicated  in  refer- 
ence to  the  requirements  for  voting,  he  might  again  set 
forth  what  he  believed  to  be  his  duty  and  to  be  in  con- 
formity with  his  instructions. 


44 

The  Minister  of  Chile  explained  that,  in  truth,  in 
the  constant  exchange  of  ideas  to  arrive  at  an  agree- 
ment as  to  the  bases  of  the  protocol  for  the  plebiscite, 
the  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  had  given  utterance 
to  the  ideas  that  had  just  been  expressed,  as  the 
speaker  had  in  turn  maintained  that  Chile  could  not 
accept  them  save  in  part*  for  he  held  that  all  the  in- 
habitants of  the  territory  possessed  by  Chile  had  the 
right  to  declare  their  will  to  belong  either  to  Peru  or  to 
Chile;  that  there  were  not,  in  his  opinion,  sufficient 
grounds  to  attempt  to  restrict  the  recognition  of  this 
right  of  foreigners  of  all  nationalities  and  still  less  of 
Chileans  who  might  not  be  considered  as  foreigners  in 
the  territory  of  Tacna  and  Arica;  that  these  ideas  of 
the  Government  of  Chile  were  in  conformity  with  the 
antecedents  of  international  law  and  practice;  and 
must  certainly  be  applicable  to  the  present  case,  in 
discussing  a  territory  such  as  Tacna  and  Arica,  in 
which,  on  the  one  hand,  the  interests  are  in  the  hands 
of  Chileans,  and  in  which,  on  the  other,  the  very 
nature  of  Chile's  possession  makes  it  necessary  that 
the  Chileans  settled  there  should  be  logically  con- 
sidered as  citizens;  that  these  ideas  had  also  already 
been  under  consideration,  on  different  occasions,  set 
forth  by  the  representative  of  Chile  to  some  of  the 
predecessors  of  the  present  Minister  of  Foreign  Ee- 
lations, as  the  expression  of  the  thought  of  the  Chilean 
Government  on  this  point,  whenever  the  discussion  of 
this  subject  had  been  provoked;  that  he  himself  did 
not  believe  either  that  the  negative  could  be  proved  in 
order  to  proceed  to  discuss,  in  case  Chile  cannot  con- 
sent to  the  proposals  of  Peru,  relative  to  the  fact  that 
Chilean  authorities  should  not  be  those  that  should 
govern  the  territories  during  the  plebiscite. 


45 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  replied  that  he 
did  not  consider  applicable  to  the  present  case  the  in- 
ternational antecedents  of  history  to  which  the  Mini- 
ster of  Chile  alluded,  because  in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon 
it  was  expressly  determined  that,  by  popular  vote,  a 
resolution  should  be  reached  as  to  the  future  nation- 
ality of  the  territories,  and  that  this  popular  vote 
could  not  refer  to  any  save  Peruvian  citizens,  a  char- 
acter not  possessed  by  the  other  inhabitants. 

The  Minister  of  Chile  replied  that  the  very  Treaty 
of  Ancon  itself  spoke  of  a  popular  plebiscitary  vote, 
which  was  equivalent  to  saying  that  the  international 
antecedents  of  this  kind  of  vote  are  applicable  to  it, 
whereby  the  observation  of  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Eelations  was  refuted. 

Whereupon  an  extensive  discussion  was  renewed, 
and  the  speaker  for  each  party,  maintaining  his  ex- 
treme opinions,  they  agreed  to  leave  a  record  of  them 
in  the  present  protocol,  without  prejudice  to  each  of 
the  negotiators  formulating  in  a  memorandum  the 
bases  of  their  respective  proposals. 

Jose  Mariano  Jimenez, 
Javier  Vial  Solar. 
Lima,  September  16,  1893. 


Minister  of  Chile  in  Peru  to  Minister  of  Foreign  Rela- 
tions of  Peru. 

[Translation.] 
(Number  26.) 

Legation  of  Chile. 

Lima  September  26,  1893. 
Mr.  Minister  : 

I  have  the  honor  to  communicate  to  Your  Excel- 
lency the  reply  of  my  Government  to  the  proposals 
contained  in  the  memorandum  of  August  19  of  the  cur- 


46 

rent  year,  which,  at  Your  Excellency's  suggestion,  I 
was  pleased  to  bring  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Ministry 
of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 

My  Government  has  learned  with  genuine  satisfac- 
tion of  the  contents  of  said  memorandum,  since  it  con- 
siders it  a  manifestation  of  the  laudable  spirit  of  cor- 
diality that  has  animated  the  Government  of  Peru  on 
this  occasion;  and  so  esteeming  it,  it  has  sought  to 
devote  to  the  study  of  its  several  complex  provisions 
all  the  attention  that  their  nature  and  broad  scope  de- 
mand. 

After  this  examination,  my  Government  holds  that, 
although  it  is  true  that  some  of  the  general  ideas  ex- 
pressed in  the  aforementioned  memorandum  might 
serve  as  a  basis  for  the  discussion  of  an  arrangement 
that  would  consult,  in  a  solid  and  permanent  manner, 
the  reciprocal  advantages  of  the  two  countries,  on  the 
other  hand,  some  of  its  concrete  provisions,  without 
having  due  regard  for  that  just  reciprocity,  would  be 
difficult  to  apply  in  practice,  and  they  would  give  rise, 
perhaps,  to  difficulties,  which  ought  always  to  be  fore- 
seen in  a  negotiation  such  as  this. 

In  view  of  these  considerations  and  without  dis- 
esteeming  in  the  least  the  proposals  that  Your  Excel- 
lency, through  the  medium  of  the  undersigned,  has 
seen  fit  to  communicate  to  it,  my  Government  trusts 
that  this  spirit  of  cordiality,  which  has  been  and  will 
always  be  the  form  of  its  procedure  and  which  has  in- 
spired the  Government  of  Peru,  in  this  incident  of  the 
negotiation,  will  soon  assume  the  form  of  an  agree- 
ment equitable  and  advantageous  to  both  countries. 

I  reiterate  to  Your  Excellency  the  assurances  of  my 
highest  consideration. 

Javier  Vial  Solar. 

To  His  Excellency  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations, 
Doctor  Don  Jose  Mariano  Jimenez. 


47 

Fifth  Conference  Between  Minister  of  Foreign  Rela- 
tions of  Peru  and  Minister  of  Chile  in  Peru. 

[Translation.] 

[Lima,  November  10,  1893.] 
Met  in  this  department,  the  Minister  of  the  Port- 
folio Don  Jose  Mariano  Jimenez,  and  the  Envoy  Extra- 
ordinary and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Chile,  Don 
Javier  Vial  Solar,  for  the  purpose  of  continuing  the 
negotiations  as  to  the  protocol  of  the  plebiscite  rela- 
tive to  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  to  which 
reference  is  made  in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  the  Minister 
of  Chile  explained  that,  as  he  had  already  said  in  his 
communication  of  September  26th  last,  although  it  is 
true  that  his  Government  had  regarded  the  proposals 
of  the  Peruvian  Chancellery,  contained  in  the  memo- 
randum of  August  19  of  the  current  year,  as  a  proof 
that  the  Government  of  Peru  desired  to  reciprocate  the 
friendly  sentiments  of  that  of  Chile  in  this  negotia- 
tion; nevertheless,  those  proposals  did  not  consult  in 
all  their  parts,  the  reciprocity  of  rights  of  the  two 
countries  on  the  basis  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon ;  that  the 
Government  of  Peru,  without  reasons  deduced  from 
the  letter  and  just  interpretation  of  those  stipulations, 
demanded  in  the  memorandum  the  disoccupation  of 
the  territory  comprised  between  the  Eiver  Sama  and 
the  Vitor  ravine,  that  is,  almost  the  whole  of  the  prov- 
ince of  Arica  and  the  province  of  Tacna,  a  disoccupa- 
tion that  the  Government  of  Chile  could  not,  by  any 
means,  accept,  save  as  a  consequence  of  the  adverse 
result  of  the  plebiscite  and  the  fulfillment  of  the  obli- 
gations enunciated  in  the  Treaty;  and  that  for  the 
commercial  privileges  offered  by  Peru — which  might 
serve  rather  to  strengthen  and  to  consolidate  their  re- 
lations of  friendship  than  as  a  pecuniary  stimulus,  a 


48 

commercial  bond  based  on  the  reciprocal  interests  of 
the  two  countries— other  considerations  relative  to  the 
principle  of  the  possession  recognized  and  sanctioned 
by  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  could  not  be  postponed;  that 
these  very  privileges,  while  it  is  true  that  they  would 
supply  Peru  with  the  means  of  paying  conveniently 
and  without  positive  sacrifices  a  considerable  number 
of  millions — a  payment  which,  made  in  any  other  way, 
would  deeply  affect  her  economic  situation — on  the 
other  hand,  would  not  be  of  equal  importance  to  Chile ; 
that  the  faculty  reserved  to  the  Government  of  Peru 
in  the  memorandum,  of  decreeing,  without  any  partici- 
pation on  the  part  of  Chile,  the  regulations  that  would 
determine  the  qualifications  for  the  exercise  of  the 
right  of  suffrage  in  the  zone  comprised  between  Sama 
and  Vitor,  would  assure  Peru  the  evident  reincorpora- 
tion of  the  disputed  territories,  with  detriment  to  the 
just  expectations  of  Chile  in  this  respect;  that,  for 
these  reasons,  which  were  explained  in  his  aforemen- 
tioned official  communication  of  September  last,  he 
thought  that  he  ought  not  to  accept  as  a  basis  of  dis- 
cussion the  memorandum  mentioned,  since  it  would  be 
impossible  for  the  negotiation  to  progress  on  the  basis 
of  a  prior  disoccupation. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  said  that  he  had 
proposed  in  the  memorandum  the  disoccupation  of  the 
zone  comprised  between  the  River  Sama  and  the  Vitor 
ravine,  as  a  consequence  of  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon,  and  for  the  reasons  that  he  set  forth 
in  the  protocol  of  the  second  conference ;  that  if,  as  the 
Minister  of  Chile  asserted,  the  considerations  that 
compelled  Chile  to  retain  possession  of  the  territories 
until  the  plebiscite  should  be  adverse  to  her  could  not 
be  deferred  in  favor  of  the  commercial  privileges 
offered  by  Peru,  the  proposal  mentioned  could  not,  in 


49 

reality,  be  maintained;  that,  furthermore,  this  result 
led  to  the  observation  made  by  the  Minister  of  Chile, 
that,  in  the  memorandum,  should  be  reserved  to  the 
Peruvian  Government  the  right  to  dictate  the  regula- 
tions that  would  decide,  as  to  the  qualifications  for  ex- 
ercising the  right  to  vote  in  the  zone  comprised  be- 
tween Sama  and  Vitor;  a  reservation  which,  in  the 
judgment  of  the  said  Minister,  would  assure  to  Peru 
the  manifest  reincorporation  of  the  territories,  to  the 
detriment  of  the  just  expectations  of  Chile;  that,  in 
respect  of  this,  he  ought  to  make  it  clear  that  this  con- 
cession of  the  right  to  decide  as  to  the  qualifications 
of  voters  was  also  left  to  Chile  in  the  memorandum,  in 
respect  of  the  zone  of  Vitor  and  Camarones ;  and  that, 
at  all  events,  Peru  would  have  proceeded  by  using  as 
a  basis  the  stipulations  of  the  Treaty,  universally  ac- 
cepted principles  of  justice  and  other  antecedents  as 
a  basis.  The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  concluded 
by  saying  that,  in  view  of  the  declaration  of  the  Mini- 
ster of  Chile,  it  would  be  impossible  for  the  negotia- 
tion to  make  headway  on  the  basis  of  a  previous  disoc- 
cupation,  he,  on  his  part,  regarded  it  as  concluded. 

The  Minister  of  Chile  said  that,  before  adjourning 
this  conference,  he  deemed  it  necessary  to  affirm  that 
he  saw  no  objection  to  continuing  the  discussions 
whenever  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  should 
invite  him,  since  his  Government  considered  that  it 
would  be  possible  to  arrive  at  an  understanding,  with- 
out it  being  necessary  for  that  purpose,  to  alter  the 
present  situation  of  the  territories. 

Jose  Mariano  Jimenez, 
Javieb  Vial  Solar. 
Lima,  November  10,  1893. 


50 

Sixth  Conference  Between  Minister  of  Foreign  Rela- 
tions of  Peru  and  Minister  of  Chile  in  Peru. 

[Translation.] 

[Lima,  December  7,  1893.] 

Met  in  this  office  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations 
Don  Jose  Mariano  Jimenez,  and  the  Envoy  Extra- 
ordinary and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Chile,  Don 
Javier  Vial  Solar,  on  the  invitation  of  the  former, 
for  the  purpose  of  resuming  the  conferences  for  the 
drawing  up  of  a  protocol  for  the  plebiscite  in  the  terri- 
tory of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  said  that,  as  an 
agreement  regarding  the  interpretation  of  Article  III 
of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  had  not  been  reached,  and  as 
the  Minister  of  Chile  had  not  accepted  the  suggested 
means  of  overcoming  the  existing  difficulties,  he  pre- 
sented the  proposal  that  the  following  questions  be 
submitted  to  a  friendly  Government  for  immediate 
solution:  first,  to  which  of  the  two  countries  ought  to 
belong  the  possession  of  the  territories  after  March 
28,  1894;  and,  second,  does  the  right  to  vote  include 
only  persons  whose  nationality  would  be  affected  by 
definitive  incorporation  with  Chile,  or  also  other  in- 
habitants! The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  added 
that  they  would  proceed  according  to  the  result  of  the 
arbitral  decision  to  discuss  the  regulations  for  the 
registration  of  voters  and  other  procedures  of  the 
plebiscite,  as  well  as  the  terms  and  periods  in  which 
the  indemnity  would  have  to  be  paid  by  the  country 
that  might  be  favored. 

The  Minister  of  Chile  said  that,  although  he  had  no 
instructions  from  his  Government  to  accept  or  to  re- 
ject the  arbitration  proposed  by  the  Minister  of 
Foreign  Relations,  nevertheless,  with  the  general  in- 


51 

structions  that  had  been  given  him  he  could  declare 
that  this  means  of  understanding  and  settlement  was 
unacceptable;  for,  in  order  to  be  so,  it  would  be  neces- 
sary to  suppose  that  the  possession  of  the  territory  of 
Tacna  and  Arica,  which  Chile  enjoys  by  virtue  of  the 
prescriptions  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  was  a  disputable 
subject  or  one  of  doubtful  right,  which  could  not  be 
admitted,  even  for  a  moment,  as  he  has  had  the  honor 
to  declare  on  repeated  occasions  to  the  Minister  of 
Foreign  Relations.  The  Minister  of  Chile  added  that 
he  regretted  that  the  Government  of  Peru  insisted  on 
ideas  of  a  character  that  would  render  an  agreement 
between  the  two  countries  impossible. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  replied  that  the 
ideas  set  forth,  both  by  him  and  by  his  predecessors  in 
the  Ministry,  regarding  this  particular,  were  based, 
in  the  judgment  of  the  Peruvian  Government,  on  the 
letter  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  and  on  the  very  just  de- 
mand that  the  plebiscite  should  be  effected  under  con- 
ditions necessary  to  assure  that  the  result  would  be 
regarded  as  the  free  and  spontaneous  expression  of 
the  will  of  the  populations  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

The  Minister  of  Chile  replied  that  this  demand 
seemed  natural  to  him,  but  that  he  did  not  consider  the 
one  suggested  by  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  the 
appropriate  way  to  satisfy  it ;  for  the  Peruvian  Gov- 
ernment ought  to  have  the  firmest  faith  in  Chile's 
honor  and  loyalty;  an  honor  and  loyalty  of  which  he 
saw  no  objection  to  affording  new  proof  by  agreeing  to 
such  guaranties,  as,  by  common  consent,  might  be 
deemed  opportune  to  assure  a  free  and  spontaneous 
polling  of  the  vote  on  the  occasion  of  the  plebiscite. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  asked  the  Mini- 
ster of  Chile  whether  he  was  authorized  to  include 
among  those  guaranties  the  participation  of  Peruvian 


52 

functionaries  in  the  plebiscitary  act  and  the  fixing  of 
the  qualifications  that  ought  to  be  possessed  by  voters. 
The  Minister  of  Chile  replied  that  if  the  Minister  of 
Foreign  Relations  would  carry  the  discussion  to  that 
realm  and  would  formulate  any  concrete  proposal,  he 
believed  it  would  be  easy  to  arrive  at  an  agreement  ac- 
ceptable to  both  countries. 

Jose  Mariano  Jimenez, 
Javier  Vial  Solar. 
Lima,  December  7,  1893. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  to  Minister  of 
Chile  in  Peru. 

[Translation.] 
(Number  5.) 

Ministry  of  Foreign  Relations. 

Lima,  January  26, 1894. 
Mr.  Minister: 

As  a  result  of  the  agreement  at  which  we  have  ar- 
rived in  our  verbal  conferences  and  pursuing  the  order 
of  ideas  taken  up  in  the  last  part  of  the  minutes  of 
December  7,  I  have  the  honor  to  present  the  following 
general  bases  for  the  drafting  of  the  definitive  protocol 
that  ought  to  be  adopted,  according  to  Article  III  of 
the  Treaty  of  Peace  of  1883. 


The  plebiscite  will  be  effected  under  such  conditions 
of  reciprocity  as  the  two  Governments  may  deem 
necessary  to  assuring  an  honest  vote,  one  that  shall  be 
the  faithful  and  exact  expression  of  the  popular  will 
of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 


53 

II. 

Whichsoever  of  the  two  countries  to  which  the  said 
provinces  shall  be  annexed  will  pay  to  the  other  ten 
million  soles  stipulated  in  the  aforementioned  Article 
III,  in  bonds  of  the  public  debt,  at  four  and  one-half 
per  cent  interest  and  one  per  cent  for  amortization. 
The  bonds  of  Chile  will  be  quoted  at  the  mean  rate  at 
which  those  of  the  same  kind  have  stood  during  the 
previous  six  months  in  the  London  market,  and  the 
bonds  of  Peru,  at  the  rate  that  shall  be  agreed  on  be- 
tween the  two  Governments,  which  must  be  at  least 
sixty  per  cent. 

The  Government  that  shall  issue  the  said  bonds 
may,  at  any  time,  amortize  them  totally  or  partially  at 
the  rate  at  which  they  were  accepted  at  the  time  of 
their  issuance. 

III. 

Coupons  for  accrued  interest  and  matured  bonds 
will  be  received  in  payment  of  the  customs  duties  of 
the  country  that  may  issue  them. 

IV. 

In  case  Chile  should  triumph  in  the  plebiscite,  Peru 
may  rectify  her  frontier  on  the  Sama  by  advancing 
as  far  as  the  southern  bank  of  the  Chero  ravine,  which 
begins  at  Punta  Quiaca  and  ends  in  the  Cordillera 
south  of  the  Nevado  Pallagua,  the  dividing  line  being 
extended  to  the  source  and  course  of  the  Uchusuma. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  Peru  should  be  favored,  Chile 
may  rectify  her  frontier  of  Camarones,  advancing  as 
far  as  the  north  bank  of  the  Vitor  ravine  or  Chaca,  in- 
cluding the  cove  of  the  same  name,  the  dividing  line  ex- 
tending through  the  said  ravine  to  its  southern  slope 
and  the  boundary  with  Bolivia. 


54 

The  country  that  shall  make  use  of  the  right  that  is 
conceded  her  on  this  basis  will  pay  to  the  other  the 
sum  of  three  million  soles,  which  will  be  deducted  from 
the  total  sum  of  the  indemnity. 

I  request  that  Your  Excellency  have  the  goodness 
also  to  formalize  your  acceptance. 

I  am  pleased  to  add  that  the  Peruvian  Government 
desires  to  proceed  as  soon  as  possible  to  the  discussion 
of  stipulations  as  to  the  details  that  ought  to  complete 
the  bases  submitted  above,  and  that  it  doubts  not  that 
the  necessary  agreement  will  be  reached  in  order  to 
assure  the  solidarity  and  spirit  of  reciprocal  conces- 
sions that  constitute  the  basis  and  grounds  of  the  pres- 
ent note  and  of  the  definitive  protocol. 

I  reiterate  to  Your  Excellency  the  assurances  of  my 
high  and  distinguished  consideration. 

Jose  Mariano  Jimenez  . 

To  His  Excellency  Senor  Don  Javier  Vial  Solar, 
Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister 
Plenipotentiary  of  Chile. 


Minister  of  Chile  in  Peru  to  Minister  of  Foreign  Rela- 
tions of  .Peru, 

[Translation.] 

Legation  of  Chile. 

Lima,  January  26, 1894. 

Mr.  Minister  : 

I  have  had  the  honor  to  receive  Your  Excellency's 
important  communication  of  this  date,  in  which  you 
propose  to  me  the  bases,  which,  once  accepted  by  me, 


55 

will  facilitate  the  drafting  of  the  definitive  protocol  to 
which  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  refers. 

In  reply,  I  am  pleased  to  say  to  Your  Excellency 
that  I  accept  the  afore-mentioned  bases,  desiring  thus 
to  afford  to  the  Right  Excellent  Government  of  Peru 
a  new  proof  of  the  lofty  spirit  of  cordiality  with  which 
the  Government  of  Chile  has  incessantly  sought  to  re- 
move the  obstacles  that  hinder  the  happy  conclusion 
of  this  negotiation. 

I  have  the  honor,  Mr.  Minister,  to  reiterate  to  Your 
Excellency  the  sentiments  of  my  most  distinguished 
consideration. 

Javier  Vial  Solar. 

To  His  Excellency  Senor  Don  Jose  Mariano  Jimenez, 
Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru. 


Memorandum  Submitted  by  Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile 
to  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 

[Translation.] 

[February  23,  1894.} 

The  plebiscite  referred  to  in  Article  III  of  the  Treaty 
of  Ancon  will  be  effected  under  the  conditions  stipu- 
lated in  the  following  articles,  with  a  view  to  securing 
a  vote  that  shall  faithfully  and  accurately  express  the 
popular  will  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

I. 

There  will  be  formed  in  the  city  of  Tacna,  when  the 
registration  of  those  that  have  a  right  to  vote  is  begun, 
a  superior  committee  or  board  composed  of  one  delegate 
appointed  by  the  Government  of  Chile,  another  by  the 
Government  of  Peru  and  an  umpire,  who  will  be  desig- 
nated by  the  *  *  *  of  *  *  *. 


56 

This  board  will  have  exclusive  powers  of  its  own  to 
make  up  the  general  register  of  voters  whose  names 
are  listed  in  the  partial  registers  of  the  localities  desig- 
nated in  a  later  article ;  to  order  the  publication  of  this 
general  register ;  and  to  make  the  scrutiny  and  the  gen- 
eral regulations  of  the  suffrage,  announcing  the  result 
of  the  vote,  which  it  will  communicate  immediately  to 
both  Governments. 

Also  it  will  settle,  without  appeal,  by  a  majority  of 
votes,  all  the  difficulties,  doubts  and  questions  that 
arise  in  respect  of  registration  and  during  the  voting, 
which  shall  be  made  to  appear  in  the  respective  min- 
utes, or  in  written  reports  of  the  commissaries  of  each 
locality. 

n. 

The  inscription  in  the  partial  registers  and  the  recep- 
tion of  the  votes  will  be  effected  by  joint  committees 
composed  of  one  delegate  appointed  by  the  Govern- 
ment of  Chile,  and  another,  by  the  Government  of  Peru, 
and  they  will  function,  for  the  province  of  Tacna,  in 
the  city  of  the  same  name,  and  in  *  *  *  and,  for  the 
province  of  Arica,  in  the  city  of  this  name  and  in  *  *  *. 

in. 

The  registration  committees  will  establish  quarters  a 
month  after  the  ratification  of  the  present  protocol  and 
they  will  function  for  another  month,  beginning  with 
the  date  on  which  their  installation  shall  be  announced. 

The  reception  of  votes  will  begin  fifteen  days  after 
the  publication  of  the  general  register  of  voters  and  it 
will  continue  for,  five  days,  and  in  each  of  them  the 
respective  minutes,  in  which  will  be  made  to  appear  the 
result  of  the  vote,  will  be  kept. 


57 

IV. 

Only  those  who  fulfill  the  following  conditions  will  be 
accepted  for  inscription  in  the  registers  as  voters: 

1.  Peruvians,  married  or  more  than  twenty-one  years 
of  age,  wTho  reside  at  present  in  the  provinces  of  Tacna 
and  Arica. 

2.  Chileans,  married  or  more  than  twenty-one  years 
of  age,  who  can  establish  a  continuous  residence  of  two 
years  in  the  said  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica  and  who 
live  there  at  present. 

Persons  in  the  public  military  service,  employees  of 
the  administration  or  those  that  may  have  lost  or  have 
had  suspended  the  rights  of  citizenship,  in  conformity, 
without  distinction,  with  the  laws  of  Chile  or  Peru,  may 
not  vote. 

V. 

Whichsoever  of  the  two  countries  to  which  the  said 
provinces  shall  be  annexed  will  pay  to  the  other  the 
ten  million  soles  stipulated  in  the  aforementioned  Ar- 
ticle III,  in  bonds  of  the  public  debt,  at  four  and  one- 
half  per  cent  interest  and  one  per  cent  for  amortiza- 
tion. The  bonds  of  Chile  will  be  quoted  at  the  mean 
rate  at  which  those  of  the  same  kind  have  stood  during 
the  previous  six  months  in  the  London  market;  and 
those  of  Peru,  at  seventy-five  per  cent  of  their  nominal 
value. 

VI. 

Coupons  for  accrued  interest  and  matured  bonds  will 
be  received  in  payment  of  the  customs  duties  of  the 
country  that  issues  them. 


58 

VII. 

In  case  Chile  should  triumph  in  the  plebiscite,  Peru 
may  rectify  her  frontier  on  the  Sama  by  advancing  as 
far  as  the  southern  bank  of  the  Chero  ravine,  which 
begins  at  Punta  Quiaca  and  ends  in  the  cordillera  south 
of  the  Nevado  Pallagua,  the  dividing  line  being  ex- 
tended to  the  source  and  course  of  the  Uchusuma. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  Peru  should  be  favored,  Chile 
may  rectify  her  frontier  through  Camarones,  advanc- 
ing as  far  as  the  north  bank  of  the  Vitor  or  Chaca  re- 
vine,  including  the  cove  of  the  same  name  and  the 
dividing  line  extending  through  the  said  ravine  to  its 
southern  slope  and  the  boundary  with  Bolivia. 

The  country  that  shall  make  use  of  the  right  that  is 
conceded  her  on  this  basis  will  pay  to  the  other  the 
sum  of  three  million  soles. 

vm. 

After  the  communication  of  the  result  of  the  plebi- 
scite to  the  two  Governments  by  the  superior  board  of 
Tacna,  if  it  shall  have  been  favorable  to  Peru,  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Chile  will  adopt  the  measures  that  may  be 
necessary  for  the  delivery  of  the  occupied  territories 
to  Peru,  within  a  period  that  will  not  exceed  thirty 
days,  reckoned  from  the  date  on  which  it  may  receive 
the  information. 

Both  contracting  parties  engage  to  take,  by  common 
consent,  in  the  case  indicated,  the  necessary  precau- 
tions to  insure  that  the  authorities  or  commissioners 
that  may  be  appointed  by  the  Government  of  Peru  shall 
receive  from  the  Chilean  authorities  the  establishments, 
public  buildings  and  offices  in  the  state  in  which  they 
shall  be  bona  fide  on  the  day  designated  for  that  pur- 
pose, as  well  as  the  archives,  documents  and  registers 


59 

relative  to  the  judicial,  civil  and  other  administration 
in  respect  of  the  management  and  government  of  the 
territories. 

IX. 

In  case  the  plebiscite  shall  be  favorable  to  Chile,  Pe- 
ruvian citizens,  native  and  otherwise,  of  the  territories 
of  Tacna  and  Arica,  with  residence  in  them,  shall  pre- 
serve their  nationality,  save  by  a  declaration  to  the 
contrary,  with  the  enjoyment  of  the  rights  that  are 
accorded  to  foreigners  by  the  laws  of  Chile,  or  such 
as  may  be  derived  from  treaties  between  the  two  na- 
tions. 

It  is  understood  that  the  same  right  is  recognized 
in  respect  of  Peruvian  citizens  in  the  strip  of  territory 
comprised  between  the  Camarones  ravine  and  Vitor, 
in  case  that  territory  remain  under  the  dominion  of 
Chile,  by  virtue  of  the  right  of  rectification  stipulated 
in  Article  VII. 

X. 

The  contracting  parties  reserve  the  right  to  settle, 
by  a  later  protocol,  what  relates  to  the  course  of  pend- 
ing litigations  and  rules  of  jurisdiction  that  are  to 
prevail  in  case  the  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica  shall 
be  restored  to  Peru  as  a  result  of  the  plebiscite. 


Confidential  Memorandum  Delivered  by  Minister  of 
Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  to  Minister  of  Chile  in 
Peru, 

[Translation.] 

[Lima,  March  9,  1894.] 

The  Minister  of  Chile  was  in  my  office  on  Tuesday 
of  the  present  week  for  the  purpose  of  reminding  me 


60 

of  the  incidents  of  the  discussion  that  we  held  be- 
fore formalizing  the  agreement  that  appears  in  the 
notes  of  January  26  last.  As  the  protocolization  of 
our  conferences  has  not  yet  been  carried  into  effect, 
because  the  said  Minister  told  me  that  the  instruc- 
tions of  his  Government  prescribed  that  he  should  em- 
ploy the  verbal  and  confidential  form,  I  have  thought 
that  I  might  not  avoid  setting  down  the  following 
narrative  of  events: 

I. 

Senor  Vial  Solar  sought  to  have  included  among 
the  bases  a  basis  that  would  embody  the  idea  that 
the  territories  should  remain  during  the  plebiscite,  in 
the  same  state  as  that  in  which  they  are  to-day.  I 
told  him  that  it  would  be  unnecessary  to  say  so,  for, 
only  in  order  to  change  the  person  of  the  occupant 
would  an  express  declaration  be  necessary.  The  Min- 
ister deemed  my  view  of  the  case  just. 

II. 

The  same  Minister  desired  that  Article  I  of  the  bases 
should  be  drafted  in  the  following  manner,  according 
to  my  recollection: 

' '  The  plebiscite  will  be  effected  under  conditions 
that  shall  guarantee  an  honest  procedure  and  a 
free  vote. " 

I  held  out  for  the  specification  of  these  guaranties, 
but  I  could  only  obtain  declarations  similar  to  those 
that  appear  in  the  protocol  of  the  fourth  conference. 
I  then  said  that  I  might  propose  no  basis  that  would 
not  assure  me  that  an  agreement  founded  on  an 
equality  of  conditions  would  be  consented  to  by  Chile, 
and  I  proposed  the  following  draft:    ''The  plebiscite 


Gl 

Avill  be  effected  under  conditions  of  the  most  absolute 
equality. ' ' 

Sen  or  Vial  Solar  declined,  alleging  that  he  had  no 
instructions  from  his  Government  to  accept  such  an 
equality.  I  replied  that  this  was  to  me  a  condition 
sine  qua  non,  and  that  the  contrary  exigency  made 
it  clear  that  his  purpose  was  not  to  give  proper  guar- 
anties. He  denied  this  idea,  and,  finally,  we  agreed, 
each  maintaining  his  own  ideas,  to  put  in  the  word 
reciprocity,  in  order  that  an  agreement  might  be 
reached  between  the  two  parties  by  the  use  of  this 
term. 

III. 

Senor  Vial  Solar  held  that  it  would  be  a  condition 
of  the  arrangement  to  constitute  a  tribunal  to  decide 
as  to  claims  for  damages  suffered  by  Chileans.  I 
answered  that  this  subject  had  no  relation  to  the  one 
we  were  discussing  and  that  the  Peruvian  Govern- 
ment would  not  object  to  negotiating  the  respective 
convention  separately. 

IV. 

Senor  Vial  also  presented  the  following  request: 
"Peru  will  withdraw  her  opposition  to  the  functioning 
of  the  tribunal  of  Berne."  I  made  the  same  objection 
on  the  ground  of  inconsistency  and  in  respect  of  it, 
I  told  him  that  Peru  would  not  object  to  withdrawing 
her  opposition,  in  one  form  or  another,  on  the  con- 
ditions proposed  to  the  French  Chancellery  by  Senor 
Don  Jose  Francisco  Canevaro,  and  that  I  was  dis- 
posed to  give  instructions  to  Senor  Eibeyro  to  this 
effect,  as  in  truth,  I  have  done. 

Lima,  March  9,  1894. 


62 

Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Minister  of  Foreign  Rela- 
tions of  Chile. 

[Translation.] 
(Number  22.) 

Legation  of  Peru. 

Santiago,  March  27,  1894. 
Sir: 

As  the  period  of  the  temporary  occupation  of  the 
provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  stipulated  in  the  Treaty 
of  Ancon,  will  expire  to-morrow,  I  have  received  in- 
structions from  my  Government  to  communicate  to 
Your  Excellency  that  it  laments  that,  for  reasons  in- 
dependent of  its  will,  the  protocol,  by  means  of  which 
the  plebiscite  that  is  to  decide  definitively  the  fate 
of  the  provinces  indicated  ought  to  be  organized,  has 
not  been  .effected. 

Although  the  Government  of  Peru  upholds  its  in- 
terpretation of  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace,  to 
the  effect  that  Chile  has  no  right  to  occupy  these 
territories  after  March  28,  1894,  it  confidently  hopes 
that  Your  Excellency  will  have  the  goodness  to  give 
special  attention  to  the  necessity  of  giving  a  definitive 
form  to  the  bases  of  a  reciprocal  compromise  on  which 
an  agreement  was  reached  on  January  26  of  the  cur- 
rent year;  and  that  Your  Excellency  will  also  be  so 
kind  as  to  consider  that  the  fact  of  prolonging  the 
occupation  of  the  provinces  mentioned  beyond  the 
period  stipulated,  without  having  settled  the  con- 
ditions for  the  plebiscite  can  be  understood  as  ap- 
plicable to  Peru  only  with  the  reservation  of  her 
right  as  she  has  upheld  it,  without  prejudice  to  seek- 
ing, in  the  most  loyal  and  sincere  spirit,  an  honorable 
and  practical  means  of  arriving  at  the  solution  of  this 
interesting  affair,  in  order  to  consolidate  the  friendly 


63 

understanding  that  happily  exists  between  the  two 
Governments. 

I  take  this  opportunity  to  renew  to  Your  Excellency 
the  assurances  of  my  high  and  distinguished  con- 
sideration. 

R.  Rtbeyro. 

To  His  Excellency  Senor  Don  Ventura  Blanco  Viel, 
Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Chile  to  Minister  of 
Peru  in  Chile. 

[Translation.] 
(Number  620.) 

Republic  of  Chile. 
Ministry  of  Foreign  Relations. 

Santiago,  March  29,  1894. 
Sir: 

I  have  had  the  honor  to  acquaint  myself  with  your 
polite  note  of  the  twenty-seventh  of  the  present  month, 
which  you  were  good  enough  to  put  into  my  hands 
personally  yesterday  afternoon,  at  half  after  three 
o  'clock. 

In  that  communication,  you  informed  me  that,  as 
the  period  of  temporary  occupation  of  the  provinces 
of  Tacna  and  Arica,  stipulated  in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon, 
would  expire  on  the  day  following  the  date  of  your 
communication,  you  had  received  instructions  from 
your  Government  to  signify  to  this  Chancellery  that  it 
lamented  that,  for  reasons  independent  of  its  will,  the 
protocol,  by  means  of  which  the  plebiscite  that  is  to 
decide  definitively  the  fate  of  the  provinces  indicated 
ought  to  be  organized,  has  not  been  effected. 


64 

You  add  that  the  Government  of  Peru,  although  it 
upholds  its  interpretation  of  Article  III  of  the  Treaty 
of  Peace,  to  the  effect  that  Chile  has  no  right  to 
occupy  those  territories  after  March  28,  1894,  it  hopes 
that  the  undersigned  will  give  special  attention  to  the 
necessity  of  giving  a  definitive  form  to  the  bases  of 
a  reciprocal  compromise  on  which  an  agreement  was 
reached  on  January  26  of  the  current  year;  and  that 
he  will  also  be  so  kind  as  to  consider  that  the  fact 
of  prolonging  the  occupation  of  the  provinces  men- 
tioned beyond  the  period  stipulated,  without  having 
settled  the  conditions  for  the  plebiscite  may  be  under- 
stood as  applicable  to  Peru  only,  with  the  reservation 
of  her  right  as  she  has  upheld  it,  without  prejudice 
to  seeking  an  honorable  and  practical  means  of  ar- 
riving at  a  solution  of  this  affair. 

Having  transcribed,  almost  textually,  the  ideas  con- 
tained in  your  note  with  which  I  am  occupying  myself, 
it  is  my  duty  to  reply  to  them  in  conformity  with  the 
instructions  that  I  have  received  from  His  Excellency 
the  President  of  the  Republic. 

I  must  begin,  Mr.  Minister,  by  making  it  clear  that 
my  Government — at  the  same  time  that  it  deeply  de- 
plores that  hitherto  the  bases  for  the  holding  of  the 
plebiscite  have  not  been  settled — believes  it  to  be  its 
duty  to  declare  that  it  disclaims,  absolutely,  all  re- 
sponsibility that  might  be  attributed  to  it  in  the  prem- 
ises, inasmuch  as  the  standard  of  conduct  to  which 
it  has  adhered,  from  the  very  moment  in  which  it 
deemed  it  opportune  to  suggest  the  necessity  of  dis- 
cussing these  bases,  is  an  unimpeachable  evidence 
that  its  most  constant  desire  has  been  to  seek  a 
thoroughly  opportune  solution  and  one  that  would  be 
in  keeping  with  the  Treaty  of  Ancon. 

In  truth,  Mr.  Minister,  neither  you  nor  your  Govern- 
ment can  be  unaware — since  antecedents  that  must 


65 

exist  in  the  Chancellery  of  Lima  corroborate  it  in  an 
unequivocal  manner — that  the  Government  of  Chile, 
in  dealing  with  this  question,  whether  through  the 
medium  of  its  diplomatic  representative  in  Peru  or 
in  its  direct  relations  with  the  Minister  of  Peru  in 
Chile,  has  been  actuated  invariably  by  a  conciliatory 
and  prudent  spirit,  seeking,  as  it  has  sought,  as  far 
as  it*  has  been  possible  for  it  to  do  so,  to  render  an 
easy  and  expeditious  way  to  a  settlement. 

You  know,  Mr.  Minister,  that,  although  the  nego- 
tiations ought  first  to  have  been  opened  in  Santiago, 
the  Chancellery,  always  having  in  view  the  purpose  of 
not  hindering  or  delaying  the  steps,  yielded,  without 
any  resistance,  to  the  request  that  was  made  by  your 
Government,  that  the  bases  of  the  plebiscite  should 
be  discussed  in  Lima,  between  His  Excellency  the 
Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru  and  the  dip- 
lomatic representative  of  Chile. 

Having  analyzed  this  first  point,  contained  in  your 
note  to  which  I  am  replying,  I  proceed  to  occupy  my- 
self with  the  declaration  that  you  formulate  as  to  the 
interpretation  that  the  Government  of  Peru  places  on 
Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace,  to  the  effect  that 
Chile  has  no  right  to  the  occupation  of  the  territories 
of  Tacna  and  Arica  after  March  28,  1894. 

You  must  permit  me,  Mr.  Minister,  to  inform  you 
without  delay  that  my  Government  does  not  share  your 
Government's  opinion  in  this  respect. 

You  are  aware  that,  prior  to  the  making  of  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon,  Chile  lawfully  occupied  the  provinces 
of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

Hence,  if,  later,  a  treaty  was  signed  in  which  were 
stated  the  conditions  under  which  the  definitive  pos- 
session of  those  territories  should  be  decided,  it  is 
evident  that,  until  those  conditions  should  be  fulfilled, 


66 

or  until  there  should  be  an  express  agreement  that 
should  settle  things  otherwise,  occupation  ought  in- 
variably to  continue  to  be  maintained  by  Chile. 

The  opinion  of  my  Government  as  to  this  phase  of 
the  question  has  been  maintained,  both  by  its  Pleni- 
potentiary in  Lima,  in  several  of  the  conferences  held 
with  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru,  and 
in  some  of  the  interviews  conducted  by  the  under- 
signed and  his  honorable  predecessor  with  the  Min- 
ister Plenipotentiary  of  Peru. 

Indeed,  in  the  protocol  signed  in  Lima  on  December 
7,  1893,  it  appears  that  His  Excellency  Senor  Jimenez 
said : 

"As  an  agreement  regarding  the  interpretation 
of  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  had  not 
been  reached,  and  as  the  Minister  of  Chile  had 
not  accepted  the  suggested  means  of  overcoming 
the  existing  difficulties,  he  presented  the  proposal 
that  the  following  questions  should  be  submitted 
to  a  friendly  Government  for  immediate  solution : 
first,  to  which  of  the  two  countries  ought  to  belong 
the  territories  after  March  28,  1894?  *  *  *" 

To  this  proposal,  as  appears  in  the  same  protocol, 
the  Minister  of  Chile  replied : 

"that,  although  he  had  no  concrete  instructions 
from  his  Government  to  accept  or  to  reject  the  ar- 
bitration proposed  by  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Re- 
lations, nevertheless,  with  the  general  instruc- 
tions that  had  been  given  him  he  could  declare 
that  this  means  of  understanding  and  settlement 
was  unacceptable ;  for,  in  order  to  be  so,  it  would 
be  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  possession  of  the 
territory  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  which  Chile  enjoys 
by  virtue  of  the  prescriptions  of  the  Treaty  of 
Ancon,  was  a  disputable  subject  or  one  of  doubtful 
right,  which  could  not  be  admitted  even  for  a 


67 

moment,  as  he  has  had  the  honor  to  declare  on 
repeated  occasions  to  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Relations.  The  Minister  of  Chile  added  that  he 
lamented  that  the  Government  of  Peru  insisted 
on  ideas  of  a  character  that  would  render  an 
agreement  between  the  two  countries  impossible." 

I  deem  it  opportune,  besides,  to  reproduce,  next, 
paragraph  I  of  a  memorandum  that  His  Excellency 
Senor  Jimenez  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  Plenipoten- 
tiary of  Chile  in  Peru,  which  shows  the  sense  and 
scope  of  the  bases  of  an  arrangement  proposed  by 
the  former  in  his  official  communication  of  January 
26  last,  and  leaves  the  way  open  to  the  negotiators : 

"  Senor  Vial  Solar  sought  to  have  included 
among  the  bases  a  basis  that  would  embody  the 
idea  that  the  territories  should  remain,  during  the 
plebiscite,  in  the  same  state  as  that  in  which  they 
are  to-day.  I  told  him  that  it  would  be  unneces- 
sary to  say  so,  for  only  in  order  to  change  the 
person  of  the  occupant  would  an  express  declara- 
tion be  necessary.  Senor  Vial  Solar  deemed  my 
view  of  the  case  just." 

My  Government  therefore,  Mr.  Minister,  maintains, 
in  this  respect,  the  opinions  that  it  has  previously 
expressed  as  to  Chilean  possession  of  the  provinces 
of  Tacna  and  Arica  until  the  settlement  that  must  be 
sought  in  the  celebration  of  the  plebiscite. 

In  respect  of  the  ideas  contained  in  your  note,  to 
the  effect  that  the  Government  of  Peru  confidently 
hopes  that  the  undersigned  will  see  fit  to  give  especial 
attention  to  the  general  bases  of  the  arrangement 
presented  on  January  26  last  by  His  Excellency  Senor 
Jimenez,  I  hasten  to  signify  to  you  that  if  the  circum- 
stances that  grow  out  of  the  pending  ministerial  crisis 
did  not  place  me  under  the  necessity  of  withdrawing 


68 

very  soon  from  affairs  under  my  charge,  I  should 
be  highly  pleased  to  enter  upon  a  thorough  study  of 
the  said  bases  and  to  discuss  with  you  the  details  that 
ought  to  complete  them  and  to  fix  the  conditions  and 
manner  in  which  the  plebiscite  ought  to  be  effected. 

In  spite  of  this,  you  may  be  assured  that  my  suc- 
cessor in  the  office  of  Foreign  Relations  will  give  due 
attention  to  the  affairs  with  which  I  am  occupying 
myself,  and  in  the  early  settlement  of  which  my 
Government  is  as  vitally  interested  as  your  Govern- 
ment. 

Be  pleased  to  accept,  in  the  meanwhile,  the  assur- 
ances of  my  consideration. 

V.  Blanco. 
To  Senor  Don  Ramon  Ribeyro, 

Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary 
of  Peru  in  Chile. 


Minister   of  Peru  in  Chile   to  Minister   of  Foreign 
Affairs  of  Chile. 

[Translation.] 
(No.  43.) 

Legation  of  Peru, 

Santiago,  September  21,  1894. 
Sir: 

In  due  course  I  laid  before  my  Government  the  re- 
sults of  the  conference  of  July  5th  ultimo,  which  I  had 
the  honor  to  seek  from  Your  Excellency  with  the  ob- 
ject of  renewing  the  conferences  which,  during  last 
February,  I  had  the  pleasure  of  holding  with  Your 
Excellency's  distinguished  predecessor  for  the  pur- 
pose of  establishing  in  the  respective  protocol  the 
conditions  of  the  plebiscite  that  is  to  definitively 
settle   the   destiny   of   the   provinces    of    Tacna   and 


69 

Arica.  I  am  now  in  receipt  of  instructions  to  inform 
Your  Excellency  that  the  Peruvian  Government, 
prompted  by  the  keenest  and  most  sincere  desire  to 
arrive  at  an  honorable  and  equitable  solution  of  this 
important  question,  involving  as  it  does  the  real  and 
permanent  interests  of  Chile  and  Peru,  has  every  con- 
fidence that  Your  Excellency's  Government,  moved  by 
the  same  purposes,  will  be  good  enough,  in  view  of  the 
present  status  of  the  negotiations,  to  lay  before  it  the 
Chilean  Government's  views  and  opinions  in  the  matter 
and  the  means  by  which,  in  its  conception,  the  much 
desired  settlement  of  the  pending  negotiations  may  be 
reached. 

The  proceedings  in  the  case,  with  which  Your  Excel- 
lency is  of  course  familiar,  show  that  on  the  4th  of 
April,  1893,  the  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Chile  in 
Peru,  having  been  invited  anew  to  adjust  the  bases  of 
the  protocol,  proceeded  at  once  to  discuss  the  different 
ways  in  which  the  two  negotiators  interpreted  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon.  The  results  of  those  conferences 
were  set  forth  in  the  acts  subsequently  subscribed  by 
them. 

On  the  19th  of  August  of  the  same  year  the  Peruvian 
Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  presented  a  memorandum 
containing  a  series  of  concrete  propositions  as  a  basis 
for  negotiation,  which  propositions  when  submitted  to 
the  Minister  of  Chile  at  his  Chancellery,  were  not  ac- 
cepted, for  the  reasons  specified  in  the  act  of  November 
10th. 

The  parties  then  proceeded  to  the  consideration  of 
other  bases  of  agreement  which,  this  time,  were  adopted 
and  agreed  to  in  the  form  set  forth  in  the  exchange  of 
notes  of  January  26th  of  the  present  year. 

It  should  be  recorded  in  this  connection  that  aside 
from  the  fact  that  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations 


70 

had  knowledge  of  the  course  and  incidents  of  these 
negotiations,  the  undersigned  took  occasion  to  speak  of 
it  with  Your  Excellency's  distinguished  predecessor 
when  he  was  charged  by  his  Government  to  overcome 
the  difficulties  and  reservations  which  the  Chilean  Plen- 
ipotentiary raised  against  the  agreement  that  among 
the  bases  discussed  there  should  be  included  the  even- 
tual right  on  the  part  of  Peru  to  rectify  the  frontier  be- 
tween the  two  territories  in  the  event  that  the  plebiscite 
should  be  favorable  to  Chile — a  step  which,  resting 
upon  the  support  of  reciprocity  adopted  by  the  Chil- 
ean Plenipotentiary,  resulted  satisfactorily. 

The  bases  of  January  26th  having  been  adjusted, 
and  the  Chilean  Minister  having  declared  that  his 
instructions  were-  not  broad  enough,  the  Peruvian 
Government  decided  to  entrust  to  me  the  task  of  pro- 
ceeding with  the  negotiations,  by  that  time  reduced  to 
fixing  on  the  basis  of  that  reciprocity,  the  composi- 
tion of  the  commissions  or  boards  that  were  to  conduct 
the  plebiscite,  the  qualifications  of  the  voters  and  the 
details  relating  to  the  payment  of  the  indemnity;  and 
I  was  further  charged  to  inform  Your  Excellency  that 
the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations,  in  his  anxiety  lest 
the  negotiations  might  suffer  through  postponements 
or  somnolence,  hastens  to  declare  to  the  Chilean  Pleni- 
potentiary that  there  is  no  objection  to  the  immediate 
discussion  of  the  terms  of  the  agreement  concerning 
the  indemnification  of  injured  Chileans,  provided  for 
in  Article  XII  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon;  and  that  the 
Minister  had  therefore  instructed  me  to  negotiate  the 
conditions  under  which  Peru  might  retire  from  her 
opposition  to  the  Swiss  arbitration  stipulated  by  Your 
Excellency's  Government  with  the  representative  of 
France. 


71 

After  a  brief  explanation  which  Your  Excellency's 
predecessor  sought  from  me  concerning  certain  of  the 
bases  adopted  on  January  26th,  I  was  extremely  grat- 
ified to  exchange  ideas  with  him  relating  to  the  points 
still  open  to  discussion,  starting  from  an  honorable 
reciprocity,  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the  Chilean 
Government  in  rejecting  the  memorandum  of  August 
19th  and  of  the  Peruvian  Government  in  formulating 
the  proposal  of  January  26th. 

Unfortunately  at  that  time  occurred  the  political 
crisis  that  brought  about  the  resignation  of  Sefior  don 
Pedro  Montt's  Cabinet,  Sefior  Blanco  Viel,  Minister 
of  Foreign  Eelations,  then  making  it  clear  to  me  that 
it  would  be  impossible  to  pursue  the  negotiations, 
which  thereupon  were  suspended  and  remained  in  sus- 
pense even  after  the  formation  of  the  new  Cabinet,  as 
a  result  of  the  lamentable  death  of  the  President  of 
Peru,  General  don  Kemegio  Morales  Bermudez,  until 
the  recognition  of  his  successor. 

In  obedience  to  my  instructions,  following  imme- 
diately upon  that  recognition,  I  hastened  to  renew  the 
interrupted  conferences  in  the  hope  that  I  might  find 
in  Your  Excellency  the  spirit  of  friendly  cordiality 
that  has  guided  my  Government  throughout  the  course 
of  these  protracted  negotiations  and  to  put  an  end  to 
the  abnormal  situation  in  which  the  provinces  of  Tacna 
and  Arica  found  themselves.  At  that  time  also  I  had 
had  the  opportunity,  at  the  above  mentioned  inter- 
view of  July  5th,  of  hearing  the  resolution  of  Your 
Excellency's  Government. 

The  Peruvian  Government,  which  is  anxious  to  ar- 
rive at  a  conclusion  of  these  laborious  negotiations  and 
which  flattered  itself  that  it  had  reached  a  safe  point 
of  departure  in  the  bases  of  January  26th — having 
held  them  to  be  perfected  through  the  fact  that  it  had 


72 

received  no  communication  in  opposition  thereto  and 
that  negotiations  thereon  had  been  initiated — con- 
sidered, therefore,  that  in  the  interest  of  an  early  and 
satisfactory  determination — to  which  end  no  sacrifice 
would  be  too  great — Your  Excellency  should  be  pleased 
to  honor  me  with  the  communication  to  which  I  refer 
at  the  outset  of  this  note. 

I  avail  myself  of  this  opportunity  to  renew  to  Your 
Excellency  the  assurances  of  my  highest  and  most 
distinguished  consideration. 

R.  Ribeyro. 
His  Excellency, 

Senor  don  Mariano  Sanchez  Fontecilla, 

Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile  to  Minister  of 
Pent  in  Chile. 

[Translation.] 
(Number  2507) 

Republic  of  Chile,  Ministry  of  Foreign  Relations. 

Santiago,  October  4,  1894. 
Sir: 

I  am  pleased  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your 
courteous  communication  of  the  twenty-first  of  last 
month,  in  which  you  take  occasion  to  inform  me  that 
you  have  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  your  Govern- 
ment the  result  of  the  conference  that  we  held  on  July 
5  of  the  present  year  for  the  purpose  of  renewing  those 
that  you  had  already  held  with  my  honorable  prede- 
cessor. You  also  inform  me,  in  the  communication 
referred  to,  that  you  have  received  instructions  to  ad- 
dress the  Chilean  Government  in  order  to  suggest  to  it 


73 

the  idea  of  transmitting  to  the  Government  of  Peru  its 
views  and  opinions  regarding  the  means  which,  in  its 
opinion,  may  lead  to  the  conclusion  of  the  pending  ne- 
gotiation as  to  the  ultimate  fate  of  the  provinces  of 
Tacna  and  Arica. 

After  the  results  at  which  we  arrived  in  the  confer- 
ence of  July  5,  to  which  you  refer,  it  will  not  seem 
strange  to  you  that  this  department  conceives  that 
there  is  no  need  or  advantage  whatsoever  in  going 
over  the  more  or  less  detailed  history  of  the  negotia- 
tions prior  to  that  date,  since  those  negotiations  can 
possess  only  an  historical  or  illustrative  importance 
in  the  negotiations  that  are  to  follow. 

For  this  same  reason,  and  because  new  negotiations 
ought  to  be  opened,  the  undersigned  believed  the  mo- 
ment had  not  yet  arrived  to  formalize  in  writing  the 
views  and  opinions'  of  his  Government.  Accordingly, 
he  believed  also  that  it  would  be  more  conducive  to  the 
success  of  the  negotiation  that  we  should  hold  previ- 
ously a  new  conference,  which,  as  you  know,  took 
place  on  the  twenty-eighth  day  of  last  month. 

I  cherish  the  hope  that  this  conference — from  which, 
I  trust,  no  inconsiderable  results  will  be  obtained  in 
the  direction  of  reaching  a  solution  of  the  question 
of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica — will,  in  itself 
alone,  constitute  in  your  mind,  as  it  does  in  my  own 
opinion,  a  complete  satisfaction  of  the  desire  you  have 
seen  fit  to  transmit  to  me  in  the  name  and  by  the  in- 
structions of  your  Government. 

I  renew  to  you  the  assurances  of  my  highest  consid- 
eration. 

M.  Sanchez  Fontecilla. 
To  Senor  Don  Ramon  Ribeyro, 

Envoy  Extraordinary  and 

Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Peru. 


74 


Minister  of  Chile  in  Peru  to  President  of  the 
Council  of  Government  of  Per 


[Translation.] 
Legation  of  Chile. 

The  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipoten- 
tiary of  Chile  presents  his  conrteons  salutations  to  His 
Excellency,  the  President  of  the  Council  of  Government 
and  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  and  requests  him  to 
have  the  goodness  to  grant  him  an  audience,  as  soon 
as  possible,  in  order  to  engage  his  attention  with  one  of 
the  affairs  that  has  been  entrusted  to  him  by  his  Gov- 
ernment. 

Maximo  R.  Lira  takes  this  opportunity  to  reiterate 
to  His  Excellency  Sehor  Doctor  Don  Manuel  Candamo 
the  expression  of  his  sentiments  of  the  most  distin- 
guished consideration. 


o 


Lima,  August  3,  1895. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  to  Minister  of 
Chile  in  Peru. 

[Translation.] 

Ministry  or  Foreign  Relations. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  courteously  re- 
turns the  salutations  of  His  Excellency  the  Envoy  Ex- 
traordinary and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Chile  and 
has  the  honor  to  inform  him  that  he  will  be  highly 
pleased  to  receive  him  on  Monday,  the  5th,  at  two  in 
the  afternoon,  to  discuss  the  subject  to  which  he  re- 
fers in  his  esteemed  note  of  today. 

Manuel  Candamo  takes  the  opportunity  to  reiterate 
to  Senor  Don  Maximo  R.  Lira  the  assurance  of  his 
high  and  distinguished  consideration. 

Lima,  August  3, 1895. 


75 

Proceedings  of  the  Conference  held  Between  Minister 
of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  and  Minister  of 
Chile  in  Peru. 

[Translation.] 

[August  5,  1895.] 

Met  under  date  of  this  day,  at  this  office  the  Minister 
of  Foreign  Relations,  Don  Manuel  Candamo,  and  the 
Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary 
of  Chile,  Don  Maximo  R.  Lira,  at  the  request  of  the 
latter,  who  explained  that  he  had  requested  this  con- 
ference in  order  to  invite  the  former  to  discuss  the 
bases  of  the  protocol  to  which  reference  is  made  in 
Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  October  20, 1883. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  said  that,  inas- 
much as  the  council  to  which  he  belonged  was  a  tem- 
porary government,  whose  term  of  office  would  end  in 
a  short  time,  he  considered  that,  perhaps,  the  moment 
was  inopportune  for  the  opening  of  a  negotiation  of 
this  nature;  and  he  added  that  Senor  Lira  had  also 
entertained  the  same  opinion,  for  when  he  was  in  the 
Ministry,  on  the  eve  of  his  departure  for  Chile,  he  told 
him  that  he  was  making  use  of  the  permission  that  his 
Government  had  granted  him,  because  he  believed  that 
a  discussion  of  this  delicate  international  subject  would 
have  to  be  postponed  until  the  new  Government  should 
be  established,  in  view  of  the  temporary  character  of 
the  Council. 

The  Minister  of  Chile  replied,  saying  that  the  recol- 
lection invoked  by  Senor  Candamo  was  correct,  and 
that,  in  truth,  he  believed,  for  a  certain  time,  that  the 
Council  of  Government  would  not  engage  in  a  discus- 
sion of  international  questions.  He  had  made  this 
fact  clear  to  his  Government,  and  the  latter,  also  per- 
suaded that  these  questions  would  not  be  considered, 


76 

granted  him  leave  to  be  absent  from  Lima.  Subse- 
quently, however,  the  same  Council,  by  accrediting  a 
plenipotentiary  to  the  Government  of  Bolivia  and  by 
intending  to  send  another  to  Santiago,  signified  that  it 
deemed  it  opportune  to  deal  with  those  questions,  and 
that  it  desired  to  discuss  them,  since  it  was  natural 
that  they  should  be  kept  in  view  in  the  instructions  it 
had  given  to  the  ministers  it  was  sending  abroad.  As 
for  the  rest,  even  if  the  Council  was  to  dissolve  at  once, 
it  would  always  be  wise  to  gain  time  and  further  the 
undertaking,  with  all  the  more  reason,  said  the  Minis- 
ter of  Chile,  inasmuch  as  it  would  not  be  wasted;  for 
he  supposed  that  the  Council  would  proceed  in  this 
affair  of  an  agreement  with  the  already  known  head  of 
the  future  Government. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  promised  to  sub- 
mit to  the  consideration  of  the  Council  of  Government 
the  invitation  of  the  Minister  of  Chile,  and  thereupon 
the  conference  adjourned. 

M.  Candamo. 

M.  R.  Lipa. 
In  Lima,  August  5,  1895. 


Proceedings  of  the  Conference  Held  Between  Minister 
of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  and  Minister  of 
Chile  in  Peru. 

[Translation.] 

[August  9,  1895.] 

Under  date  of  this  day,  met  at  this  office,  the  Minis- 
ter of  Foreign  Relations,  Don  Manuel  Candamo,  and 
the  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary 
of  Chile,  Don  Maximo  R.  Lira,  and  the  former  said 
that  he  was  ready  to  listen  to  the  proposals  that  the 


77 

latter  might  wish  to  make  with  a  view  to  the  execution 
of  the  plan  enunciated  in  the  conference  of  the  fifth. 

The  Minister  of  Chile  explained  that,  inasmuch  as 
the  possibility  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica 
being  annexed  to  Chile  was  contemplated  in  the  Treaty 
of  Ancon,  he  desired  to  know  whether,  in  the  judgment 
of  the  Government  of  Peru,  it  might  be  possible  to 
negotiate  an  arrangement  that  would  lead  to  the  secur- 
ing of  this  result  without  the  need  of  appealing  to  a 
plebiscite,  and  he  presented,  in  favor  of  a  direct  ar- 
rangement, numerous  considerations,  deduced  prin- 
cipally, from  the  necessity  of  ministering  to  the  con- 
solidation of  peace  in  South  America. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  declared  that  he 
considered  unacceptable  any  direct  arrangement  that 
should  not  have  as  a  basis  the  return  to  Peru  of  the 
provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  to  which  the  national 
patriotism  was  formally  pledged;  and  that,  just  as 
Chile  seemed  determined  to  cherish  the  expectations 
that  had  been  created  in  her  favor  by  the  Treaty  of 
Ancon,  so  also  Peru  was  resolved  to  maintain  hers. 

This  point  was  discussed  at  length  until  this  con- 
ference ended,  after  it  had  been  decided  that  all  pro- 
posals that  tended  to  a  solution  of  the  question  by 
direct  arrangements  should  be  omitted  from  its  dis- 
cussion. 

M.  Candamo. 
M.  E,  Liea. 
In  Lima,  August  9,  1895. 


78 

Proceedings  of  the  Conference  Held  Between  Minister 
of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  and  Minister  of 
Chile  in  Peru. 

[Translation.] 

[August  20,  1895.] 

Under  date  of  this  day,  met  at  this  office,  the 
Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  Don  Manuel  Candamo, 
and  the  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipo- 
tentiary of  Chile,  Don  Maximo  R.  Lira. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  announced  that, 
inasmuch  as  the  idea  of  seeking  a  direct  arrangement 
for  the  solution  of  the  question  relative  to  the  future 
nationality  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica  had 
been  eliminated  from  the  discussion,  it  was  now  time 
to  proceed  to  discuss  the  bases  of  the  plebiscite  and 
to  begin  by  determining  how  the  authority  that  would 
preside  over  it  should  be  constituted. 

The  Minister  of  Chile  explained  that,  in  his  opinion, 
the  subject  ought  to  be  approached  otherwise.  The 
Treaty  of  Ancon  submitted  the  fate  of  the  provinces 
of  Tacna  and  Arica  to  two  main  conditions :  that  a 
plebiscite  should  adjudicate  them  to  Peru  or  Chile,  and 
that  whichsoever  of  these  two  nations  might  obtain 
them  should  pay  to  the  other  a  definite  sum  of  money. 
It  is  therefore  necessary  to  assure  the  effectiveness 
of  the  plebiscitary  vote,  and  to  ascertain  in  advance 
whether  the  two  countries  possess  the  means  of  ful- 
filling the  second  condition.  In  harmony  with  this 
opinion,  the  Minister  of  Chile  offered,  in  behalf  of  his 
Government,  sufficiently  to  guarantee  its  capacity  to 
make  the  disbursement  of  the  sum  that  would  have 
to  be  paid  if  the  plebiscite  should  favor  Chile,  and  he 
asked  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  to  do  as  much 
in  behalf  of  Peru. 


The  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  replied  that  Peru 
would  be  able  to  pay  the  indemnity  that  might  pertain 
to  her,  in  bonds  of  the  public  debt  or  in  money,  within 
a  period  that  would  not  exceed  a  year,  reckoned  from 
the  date  of  the  vote  that  would  have  restored  to  her 
the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

The  Minister  of  Chile  deemed  these  offers  unaccept- 
able ;  neither  the  payment  in  bonds,  for  this  would  be 
equivalent  to  an  incomplete  clearing  up  of  the  situation 
and  would  leave  in  existence  between  Chile  and  Peru 
the  relations  of  creditor  and  debtor,  from  which  are 
wont  to  result  difficulties  or  troubles ;  nor  payment 
within  a  period,  because  Chile  and  Peru  would  still 
be  placed  in  a  false  situation,  if  the  former,  as  seems 
natural,  should  have  to  continue  to  occupy  Tacna  and 
Arica  until  the  latter  should  complete  the  payment  of 
the  indemnity.  In  other  respects,  he  added,  the  period 
indicated  is  unnecessary,  because  Peru  can,  from  this 
very  moment,  seek  the  sums  she  would  owe  to  Chile 
and  have  them  ready  against  the  time  when  the  plebi- 
scite shall  have  been  effected,  which  will  take  place 
probably  within  a  year,  more  or  less,  reckoned  from 
this  date. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  requested  the 
Plenipotentiary  of  Chile  to  make  his  proposal  more 
precise  in  this  respect,  and  the  latter  said  that  an 
agreement  might  be  made  somewhat  like  the  following : 
a  month  after  the  promulgation  of  the  plebiscitary 
decision,  Chile,  if  the  decision  were  adverse  to  her, 
would  return  to  Peru  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and 
Arica,  and  Peru  would  pay  to  Chile  the  sums  in  which 
she  would  become  indebted  to  her.  Chile,  in  turn, 
would  contract  an  identical  obligation.  It  is  under- 
stood, of  course,  that  this  payment  must  be  sufficiently 
guaranteed. 


80 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  said  that  he 
would  consult  his  colleagues  of  the  Council  of  Govern- 
ment regarding  the  point,  and  this  conference  ended. 

M.  Candamo, 
M.  R.  Liea. 
In  Lima,  August  20,  1895.  , 


Proceedings  of  the  Conference  Held  Between  Minister 
of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  and  Minister  of 
Chile  in  Peru. 

[Translation.] 

[August  23,  1895.] 

Under  date  of  this  day,  met  in  this  office,  the 
Minister  of  Foreign  Relations,  Don  Manuel  Candamo, 
and  the  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipo- 
tentiary of  Chile,  Don  Maximo  R.  Lira. 

The  discussion  was  continued  on  the  point  that  had 
remained  pending  in  the  previous  conference,  relative 
to  the  period  and  guaranties  for  the  payment  of  the 
sum  which,  pursuant  to  what  was  stipulated  in  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon,  is  to  be  paid  to  the  other  country 
by  the  one  which,  according  to  the  result  of  the  plebi- 
scite, might  acquire  definitive  dominion  over  the  prov- 
inces of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  explained  that 
the  period  of  one  month,  fixed  by  the  Minister  of  Chile, 
was  too  brief,  and  that  the  briefest  period  that  might 
be  stipulated  ought  to  be  six  months,  reckoned  from 
the  promulgation  of  the  plebiscitary  decision,  and 
that,  in  respect  of  guaranties,  he  did  not  deem  it 
necessary  that  any  in  particular  should  be  agreed  on, 
inasmuch  as  something  would  have  to  be  determined 


81 

in  case  the  payment  should  not  be  effected  within  the 
stipulated  period. 

The  Minister.  Plenipotentiary  of  Chile  said,  on  his 
part,  that  he  insisted  on  considering  sufficient  the 
period  he  had  taken  occasion  to  indicate  at  the  pre- 
vious conference,  for  these  two  reasons:  first,  be- 
cause Peru  may  have  been  accumulating  funds  for 
the  ransom  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica, 
since  she  signed  in  October,  1883,  the  Treaty  of 
Ancon,  in  which  was  stipulated  the  payment  of  a  sum 
of  money  by  her ;  and,  second,  because  even  now  steps 
might  be  taken  to  obtain  these  funds,  she  thus  having 
at  her  disposal,  for  this  purpose,  a  period  of  more 
than  a  year,  which  would  unquestionably  be  the  one 
that  would  elapse  between  this  date  and  that  of  the 
promulgation  of  the  plebiscitary  decision.  As  to  the 
guaranty  which,  in  his  opinion,  Chile  and  Peru  ought 
mutually  to  offer  to  each  other,  in  order  to  assure  the 
execution  of  the  plebiscitary  decision,  Sen  or  Lira  said 
that  he  continued  to  deem  it  necessary,  because  of 
considerations  that  he  had  set  forth  fully  in  other  con- 
ferences and  that  still  retained  all  their  force.  Never- 
theless, he  concluded,  perhaps  it  would  be  acceptable 
to  substitute  for  that  guaranty  some  provision  that 
would  otherwise  assure  the  definitive  settlement  of  the 
question  relative  to  the  future  nationality  of  the  ter- 
ritories of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

Whereupon  the  conference  adjourned. 

M.  Candamo. 
M.  R.  Liea. 
In  Lima,  August  23,  1895. 


82 

Proceedings  of  the  Conference  Held  Between  Minister 
of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  and  Minister  of 
Chile  in  Peru. 

[Translation.] 

[October  4,  1895.] 

Under  date  of  this  day,  met  at  the  office  of  Foreign 
Relations,  the  Minister  of  the  Department,  Doctor 
Don  Meliton  F.  Porras,  and  the  Envoy  Extraordinary 
and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Chile,  Don  Maximo 
E.  Lira. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  explained  that 
he  had  summoned  the  Minister  of  Chile  in  order  to 
continue  the  conference  begun  with  his  predecessor, 
as  it  was  the  firm  purpose  of  his  Government  to  carry 
to  a  conclusion  the  discussions  opened,  and  that  he 
placed  it  on  record,  from  that  moment,  that  the  design 
of  the  Peruvian  Chancellery,  in  accepting  the  discus- 
sion as  to  the  period  in  which  Peru  would  pay  the  in- 
demnity, if  the  plebiscite  should  favor  her,  was  merely 
to  make  a  deduction  from  the  spirit  and  letter  of  the 
Treaty,  which  employs  the  plurals,  "  periods  and 
terms,"  in  referring  to  the  payment;  which,  un- 
questionably, includes  the  idea  of  a  certain  amplitude 
in  the  manner  of  said  payment,  not  compatible  with 
the  declarations  of  the  Minister  of  Chile,  who, 
as  a  last  concession,  had  decided  in  favor  of  the  period 
of  one  month  for  the  cancellation  of  the  sum 
mentioned. 

The  Minister  of  Chile  said  that  it  was  also  the  de- 
sire of  his  Government,  already  manifested,  quickly 
to  decide  the  questions  that  were  left  pending  by  the 
Treaty  of  1883 ;  and,  recalling,  as  he  said,  the  reasons 
that  he  had  alleged  to  Senor  Candamo  for  making 
his  request  that  a  period  should  be  fixed  for  the  pay- 


83 

ment  of  the  sum  to  which  Article  III  of  that  Treaty 
refers,  he  said  that  some  period  had  to  be  determined, 
and  that  it,  according  to  the  text  of  that  provision, 
might  be  brief  or  long,  of  days,  of  months  or  of  years. 
He  added,  further,  that  he  had  suggested  the  period 
of  one  month  after  the  announcement  of  the  plebi- 
scitary decision,  as  a  basis  of  discussion,  with  the  un- 
derstanding that  Chile  and  Peru  had  abundant  reasons 
to  desire  that  it  be  made  brief  and  no  fundamental 
reason  to  desire  that  it  should  be  long. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  then  said  that 
he  believed  it  to  be  impossible  that  that  was  the  idea 
of  those  who  negotiated  the  Treaty,  and  that,  at  all 
events,  he  did  not  make  a  question  of  it,  but  limited 
himself  to  proposing  an  idea,  which  besides  sur- 
mounting all  the  difficulties,  was  in  harmony  with  a 
noble  and  lofty  aim:  that  of  making  a  mutual  re- 
nunciation of  the  indemnity,  because  it  was  not  in 
harmony  with  the  sentiment  of  nationality  to  permit 
money  to  enter  into  the  question  of  the  loss  or  ac- 
quisition of  inhabited  territories,  and  because,  finally, 
the  claims  that  were  pressed  by  each  party  made  the 
renunciation  perfectly  equal  and  feasible. 

The  Minister  of  Chile  said  that,  without  expressing 
himself  as  to  the  substance  of  this  proposal,  he  con- 
sidered the  acceptance  of  it  very  difficult,  inasmuch  as 
it  would  be  equivalent  to  the  annulment  and  not  to 
the  fulfillment  of  a  part  of  Article  III  of  the  Treaty 
of  1883;  that  if  the  subject  were  approached  by  this 
path,  it  would  be  necessary  to  postpone  the  holding 
of  the  plebiscite  until  a  new  treaty  might  be  sanc- 
tioned ;  and  that  as  the  participation  of  the  Congresses 
of  the  two  countries  would  be  necessary  to  effect, 
it,  and  as  they  might  or  might  not  favor  it,  the  post- 
ponement would  continue  to  be  for  an  indefinite  period. 


84 

At  all  events,  as  the  proposal  mentioned  had  not  en- 
tered into  the  scope  of  his  instructions,  he  would  con- 
sult his  Government  regarding  it,  if  the  Minister  in- 
sisted on  his  doing  so. 

The  expediency  of  this  consultation  being  re- 
cognized, after  a  brief  discussion,  it  was  decided  to 
adjourn  the  conference  and  to  hold  another  meeting 
as  soon  as  the  Minister  of  Chile  should  obtain  a  reply 
from  his  Government. 


M.  F.  Pokeas, 
M.  R.  Lira. 


In  Lima,  October  4,  1895. 


Proceedings  of  the  Conference  Held  Between  Minister 
of  Foreign  Relations  of  Pern  and  Minister  of 
Chile  in  Peru. 

[Translation.] 

[October  8,  1895.] 

Under  date  of  this  day,  met  in  the  Ministry  of  For- 
eign Relations,  the  Minister  of  the  Department,  Doctor 
Don  Meliton  F.  Porras,  and  the  Envoy  Extraordinary 
and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Chile  Don  Maximo  R. 
Lira,  to  continue  the  discussion  of  the  conditions  of 
the  plebiscite  that  is  to  decide  the  fate  of  Tacna  and 
Arica. 

The  Minister  of  Chile  said  that  he  had  received  a 
reply  from  his  Government  to  the  inquiry  he  had  made 
as  to  the  proposal  of  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Rela- 
tions relative  to  the  renunciation  by  both  parties  of 
the  indemnity  provided  for  in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon, 
and  that  it  had  declared  the  proposal  unacceptable,  for 


85 

the  same  reasons  as  those  that  had  induced  him  to  ob- 
ject to  it  in  the  preceding  conference.  He,  therefore, 
added  that  the  moment  had  arrived  to  continue  to  oc- 
cupy themselves  with  the  question  of  the  period  for  the 
payment  of  the  indemnity. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  said  that,  in 
spite  of  the  facilities  granted  to  the  country  that 
should  become  the  debtor,  from  conclusions  clearly  to 
be  deduced  from  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon, 
he  renounced  them  in  the  name  of  his  Government, 
since  Peru  was  absolutely  sure  as  to  the  payment  of 
the  indemnity — in  case  the  plebiscitary  decision  should 
be  favorable  to  her — within  any  period,  even  if  it  were 
the  briefest  period — that  of  one  month — fixed  by  the 
Minister  of  Chile. 

The  Minister  of  Chile  said,  in  this  respect,  that  he 
had  indicated  a  period  of  one  month,  as  he  thought  it 
would  be  acceptable  to  both  countries;  but  not  as  an 
exigency,  and,  in  proof  of  it,  he  now  said  that  it  might 
be  extended  to  three  months. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  agreed  to  this 
conclusion. 

The  Minister  of  Chile  then  pointed  out  that  the  time 
had  come  to  consider  the  guaranties  that  would  secure 
the  fulfillment  of  the  agreement,  as  it  would  be  neces- 
sary to  consider  the  possible  eventuality  that  there 
might  be  a  failure  in  it,  although,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  declarations  and  promises  of  the  Government  of 
Peru  inspired  perfect  confidence.  Foresight  counseled 
the  determination  of  what  would  have  to  be  done  in 
case  of  the  non-fulfillment  of  the  stipulation,  and  in 
this  respect  Chile  offered  the  same  guaranties  that  she 
asked. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  denied  that 
it    was    necessary    to     establish     other    guaranties 


86 

than  those  that  might  be  deduced  from  the  very 
convention  to  which  recourse  should  be  had  in 
fixing  the  conditions  of  the  plebiscite  and  from 
the  signatures  on  which  that  Treaty  would  de- 
pend; that,  in  respect  of  the  obligation  of  the 
Government  of  Peru,  Chile  was  amply  guaranteed 
by  the  possession  of  the  pledge,  that  is,  the  ter- 
ritory of  Tacna  aud  Arica,  and  .by  the  sentiment 
of  nationality,  which  is  the  best  possible  stimulus  and 
sufficient  in  any  case  to  guarantee  the  payment  of  the 
indemnity. 

The  Minister  of  Chile  insisted  on  his  ideas,  and 
there  followed  a  long  discussion,  which  it  was  agreed 
to  suspend  in  order  to  continue  it  on  the  following  day, 
at  the  suggestion  of  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations. 

M.  F.  Pokkas, 
M.  R.  Lira. 
Lima,  October  8,  1895. 


Proceedings  of  the  Conference  Held  Between  Minister 
of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  and  Minister  of 
Chile  in  Peru. 

[Translation.] 

[October  9, 1895.] 

On  the  ninth  of  October,  one  thousand,  eight  hun- 
dred and  ninety-five,  met  in  the  office  of  Foreign  Rela- 
tions, the  Minister  of  the  Department,  Doctor  Don 
Meliton  F.  Porras,  and  the  Envoy  Extraordinary  and 
Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Chile,  Don  Maximo  R. 
Lira. 


87 

After  having  discussed  at  length  the  point  regarding 
which  the  debate  had  begun  at  the  preceding  confer- 
ence, and  not  having  arrived  at  an  accord,  it  was 
agreed  that  the  reasons  as  to  why  a  solution  of  it  had 
not  been  reached  should  be  placed  on  record  by  both 
parties  and  in  separate  notes. 

M.  F.  Porras, 
M.  E.  Lira. 
Lima,  October  9,  1895. 


Proceedings  of  the  Conference  Held  Between  Minister 
of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  and  Minister  of 
Chile  in  Peru. 

[Translation.] 

[October  24,  1895.] 

Under  date  of  this  day,  met  in  the  office  of  Foreign 
Kelations,  the  Minister  of  the  Department,  Doctor 
Don  Meliton  F.  Porras,  and  the  Envoy  Extraordinary 
and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Chile,  Don  Maximo  R. 
Lira. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  said  he  had  sum- 
moned the  Minister  of  Chile  for  the  purpose  of  arriv- 
ing at  an  agreement  as  to  the  terms  on  which  ought  to 
be  drafted  the  minutes  of  the  preceding  conference ;  an 
act  that  ought  to  precede  the  reciprocal  sending  of  the 
notes  that  had  been  mentioned  in  that  conference. 

After  having  exchanged  some  ideas  as  to  what 
agreement  had  been  reached  on  that  occasion  and  as  to 
the  causes  that  had  led  to  it,  it  was  decided  to  let  it 
stand  as  it  was,  until  the  Minister  of  Chile  should  ob- 
tain a  reply  from  his  Government  in  respect  of  the  in- 
quiry that  he  promised  to  present  to  it  regarding  the 


88 

concession  the  Government  of  Peru  would  be  willing 
to  make  as  to  guaranties  and  as  to  the  idea  of  discuss- 
ing the  bases  of  the  plebiscite,  while  postponing  the 
point  that  had  occasioned  the  difficulties. 

M.  F.  Pobras, 
M.  R.  Lira. 
Lima,  October  24,  1895. 


Proceedings  of  the  Conference  Held  Between  Minister 
of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  and  Minister  of 
Chile  in  Peru, 

[Translation.] 

[October  30,  1895.] 

Under  date  of  this  day,  met  in  the  Ministry  of  For- 
eign Relations,  the  Minister  of  the  Department,  Doctor 
Don  Meliton  F.  Porras,  and  the  Envoy  Extraordinary 
and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Chile,  Don  Maximo  R. 
Lira. 

The  Minister  of  Chile  explained  that  he  had  received 
a  reply  from  his  Government  to  the  inquiry  he  had 
promised  in  the  preceding  conference  to  present  to 
it;  and  that  it  left  things  just  where  they  had  been 
previously,  as  he  was  instructed  to  insist  on  the 
request  for  guaranties.  The  Government  of  Chile,  he 
said,  must  have  believed  that  the  indefinite  retention 
of  the  territory  would  not  be  such  a  guaranty,  since 
this  would  be  equivalent  to  Peru's  taking  the  longest 
possible  period  for  the  payment  of  the  indemnity,  and 
that  what  had  been  agreed  on  in  reference  to  periods 
would  have  no  effect.  And,  as  to  the  postponement  of 
the  consideration  of  this  point,  in  order  to  proceed 


89 

to  discuss  the  basis  of  the  plebiscite  at  once,  this 
had  not  been  thought  proper  either,  for  the  obvious 
reason  that  nothing  would  be  gained  by  avoiding  a 
difficulty  now  that  would  be  sure  to  present  itself  later. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  pointed  out 
that,  in  view  of  the  decision  u  of  the  Government 
of  Chile,  the  difficulties  presented  still  subsisted,  and 
that  he  did  not  see  any  way  of  avoiding  them, 
since  the  Government  of  Chile  proposed  unacceptable 
exigences.  He  added  that  Peru  was  ready  to  pay  the 
ransom  and  that  she  would  take  into  consideration  the 
designation  of  the  guaranties  that  might  secure  the 
loan  necessary  to  enable  her  to  deliver  to  Chile  the 
ten  millions,  in  case  the  latter  should  become  the 
creditor,  and  that  she  would  make  this  sacrifice  in 
order  to  arrive  at  a  result,  but  that  it  would  be  neces- 
sary to  know  whether  this  result  would  be  possible. 

He  added  that  Peru  had  a  right  to  adhere  to  the 
spirit  of  the  Treaty  and  ask  for  terms  and  ample  facil- 
ities compatible  with  her  economic  situation,  but  that 
he  had  not  insisted  on  the  particular,  in. order  to  show 
good  will.  He  concluded  by  saying  that,  at  all  events, 
it  would  be  impossible  to  offer  at  once  the  guaranties 
that  the  Government  of  Chile  claimed,  because  Peru 
did  not  have  money  on  deposit,  and  it  would  be  neces- 
sary for  her  to  obtain  a  loan  and  indicate  the  means 
of  paying  it,  for  all  of  which  time  would  be  necessary. 

To  this  the  Minister  of  Chile  replied,  saying  that 
he  did  not  understand  why  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Relations  considered  unacceptable  a  request  the  ob- 
ject of  which  was  to  assure  the  efficacy  of  the  plebiscite 
by  eliminating  the  eventuality  that,  after  being  held, 
the  decision  might  not  be  carried  out  because  of  a 
failure  to  fulfill  the  obligations  contracted  by  one  of 
the  parties.    This  was  not  to  press  Peru,  and  to  prove 


90 

that  no  such  purpose  existed,  if  the  Minister  of 
Foreign  Eelations  desired  to  take  time  to  prepare  the 
guaranty  and  to  ask  for  a  period  with  this  object  in 
view,  it  was  most  certain  that  the  Government  of  Chile 
would  oppose  no  difficulty  to  agreeing  on  one.  In  this 
way  the  plebiscite  could  be  effected  with  the  assurance 
that  all  its  conditions  would  be  fulfilled,  because,  after 
being  held  and  being  favorable  to  Peru,  in  the  period 
already  agreed  on — three  months— or  in  another 
briefer  one,  Chile  would  have  returned  the  territory, 
and  Peru  would  have  paid  the  indemnity. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  said  that  he 
could  not  agree  to  the  last  statement  of  the  Minister 
of  Chile,  because  the  plebiscitary  decision  would  im- 
pose the  obligation  of  an  immediate  delivery  of  the 
territory,. that  it  might  not  be  subordinated  to  the  full 
payment  of  the  ten  millions,  since  the  Treaty  men- 
tions periods  and  terms,  which  might  be  years,  and 
since,  by  stipulating  guaranties  that  would  absolutely 
assure  the  Government  of  Chile,  there  would  be  no 
reason  to  exact  any  further  guaranty,  that  is,  the  re- 
tention of  the  territory,  as  soon  as  the  guaranty  should 
answer  the  purpose  of  the  security  sought. 

The  Minister  of  Chile  explained,  in  respect  of  these 
declarations,  that  he  did  not  conceive  that  the  Minister 
of  Foreign  Relations  would  61aim  that  the  only  in- 
terpretation of  which  the  Treaty  of  1883  would  be 
capable  was  the  one  he  gave.  In  his  judgment,  since 
the  Treaty  clearly  sets  forth  that  whichsoever  of  the. 
two  countries  that  might  be  favored  by  the  plebiscite 
was  to  pay  to  the  other  a  sum  of  money,  there  could 
be  no  doubt  whatsoever  as  to  whether  the  payment 
was  to  be  made  immediately  or  within  a  convenient 
period  previously  fixed.  However,  the  return  of  the 
territories  in  case  of  Peru's  being  favored  ought  to 


91 

coincide  with  the  payment  of  the  indemnity,  and  this 
interpretation  has  in  its  support  a  reason  of  much 
weight.  Still,  according  to  the  hypothesis  that  served 
as  a  basis  for  its  discussion  and  for  the  theory  of  the 
Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  when  Chile  should  have 
returned  the  territory,  she  would  have  fulfilled  the 
totality  of  the  obligations  that  the  Treaty  imposed  on 
her ;  in  the  meanwhile,  Peru  would  have  done  no  more 
than  give  security  for  the  later  fulfillment  of  hers. 
Since  this  is  unnatural,  concluded  the  Minister  of 
Chile,  neither  can  that  which  leads  to  such  a  result 
be  the  true  interpretation  of  the  Treaty,  and  the  ful- 
fillment of  correlative  obligations  under  conditions  of 
strict  equality  for  both  parties  ought  to  seem  to  be 
the  more  acceptable. 

After  the  discussion  of  this  point  and  as  it  was 
impossible  to  arrive  at  an  agreement  on  the  subject, 
the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  indicated  that,  in 
spite  of  the  unacceptableness  of  the  interpretation 
that  the  Minister  gave  to  the  Treaty,  he  desired  to 
bring  to  the  knowledge  of  his  Government  the  con- 
clusions that  he  had  formulated. 

Whereupon  it  was  decided  to  adjourn  the  con- 
ference. 

M.   F.   POKEAS. 

M.  R.  Lira. 
Lima.  October  30,  1895. 


92 

Minister  of  Chile  in  Peru  to  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs  of  Peru. 

[Translation.] 

(Number  177.) 

Legation  of  Chile. 

Lima,  November  23.  1895. 
Mr.  Minister: 

In  the  month  of  August  last  the  undersigned  opened, 
with  His  Excellency  Serior  Candamo,  President  of  the 
Council  of  Government  and  Minister  of  Foreign  Re- 
lations,  a  negotiation  designed  to  carry  into  effect 
Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  of  October  20,  1883, 
and  it  was  continued  with  Your  Excellency.  In  our 
conference  of  October  30  last,  the  discussion  was  al- 
most exhausted  regarding  the  point  relative  to  the 
guaranties  that  ought  to  be  stipulated  to  assure  the 
efficacy  of  the  plebiscite. 

" After  the  discussion  of  this  point' ' — so  run  the 
minutes  of  that  conference — "and  as  it  was  impossible 
to  arrive  at  an  agreement  on  the  subject,  the  Minister 
of  Foreign  Relations  indicated  that,  in  spite  of  the 
unacceptableness  of  the  interpretation  that  the  Min- 
ister gave  to  the  Treaty,  he  desired  to  bring  to  the 
knowledge  of  his  Government  the  conclusions  that  he 
had  formulated. ' ' 

As  more  than  three  weeks  have  passed  since  the 
date  of  the  aforementioned  conference,  I  take  occasion 
to  request  Your  Excellency  to  be  so  kind  as  to  inform 
me  whether  the  discussion,  interrupted  and  now  al- 
most exhausted,  is  to  be  continued,  or  whether  Your 
Excellency's  Government  has  reached  a  decision  as  to 
the  point  that  Your  Excellency,  according  to  the  min- 
utes cited,  desired  to  bring  to  its  knowledge. 


93 

I  take  this  new  opportunity  to  reiterate  to  Your 
Excellency  the  expression  of  my  sentiments  of  most 
distinguished  consideration. 

M.  R.  Lira. 
To  His  Excellency, 

Senor  Don  Meliton  F.  Porras, 
Minister  of  Foreign  Relations. 


Proceedings  of  the  Conference  Held  Between  Minister 
of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  and  Minister  of 
Chile  in  Peru. 

[Translation.] 

[December  17, 1895.] 

Under  date  of  this  day,  met  in  the  Ministry  of 
Foreign  Relations,  the  Minister  of  the  Department, 
Doctor  Don  Ricardo  Ortiz  de  Zevallos,  and  the  Envoy 
Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Chile, 
Don  Maximo  R.  Lira. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  explained  that  he 
had  delayed  this  interview  because  he  had  only  as- 
sumed charge  of  the  portfolio  a  few  days  before  and 
that  he  had  to  inform  himself  as  to  the  state  of  the 
pending  negotiations. 

The  Minister  of  Chile  replied  that  he  had  so  un- 
derstood and  that  for  this  reason  he  had  awaited  the 
reply  to  his  official  communication  of  November  23 
last. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  said  that  he  ob- 
served that  the  Government  of  Chile  maintained  its 
demand  that  Peru  should  furnish  a  guaranty  in  order 
to  carry  into  effect  the  plebiscite,  and  that,  although 
he  likewise  still  upheld,  in  this  respect,  the  declara- 


94 

tions  made  previously  by  the  Chancellery  as  to  the 
manner  of  interpreting  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  he,  de- 
siring to  remove  every  difficulty,  proposed  at  once 
that  they  proceed  to  an  agreement  to  determine  the 
manner  in  which  the  plebiscite  should  be  held;  and 
he  added  that  this  would  not  prevent  an  immediate 
discussion  of  the  subject  of  the  guaranty  of  the  pay- 
ment of  the  ten  millions:  a  subject  regarding  which 
the  Government  of  Peru  preoccupies  itself  in  a  spe- 
cial manner  -and  the  solution  of  which  would  be 
complementary  to  the  other. 

The  Minister  of  Chile  remarked  that  this  proposal 
had  already  been  presented  by  Sefior  Porras  and  had 
been  eliminated  for  reasons  set  forth  in  the  minutes 
of  a  previous  conference,  and  he  said  that,  for  this 
reason,  he  deemed  it  useless  to  consult  his  Govern- 
ment again  regarding  it. 

Not  having  reached  any  agreement,  the  conference 
was  adjourned. 

Ricardo  Ortiz  de  Zevallos. 
M.  R.  Lira. 

In  Lima,  December  17,  1895. 


Proceedings  of  the  Conference  Held  Between  Minister 
of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  and  Minister  of 
Chile  in  Peru. 

[Translation.] 

[December  27,  1895.) 

Under  date  of  this  day,  met  in  the  Ministry  of 
Foreign  Relations,  the  Minister  of  the  Department, 
Doctor  Don  Ricardo  Ortiz  de  Zevallos,  and  the  Envoy 


95 

Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Chile, 
Don  Maximo  R.  Lira.  , 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  said  that  in  the 
present  state  of  the  discussion  it  would  be  necessary 
to  learn  what  guaranties  the  Government  of  Chile 
exacted,  and  that  for  this  purpose  he  requested  Senor 
Lira  to  set  forth  in  a  concrete  manner  the  conditions 
that  these   guaranties   ought  to  include. 

The  Minister  of  Chile  replied  that,  as  he  had  already 
declared  in  another  conference,  he  believed  that  it 
was  not  for  his  Government  to  indicate  the  security 
that  Peru  ought  to  offer,  and  he  hoped  therefore  that 
the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  would  indicate  those 
{hat  his  Government  could  offer. 

After  a  prolonged  debate,  it  was  agreed  to  postpone 
the  conference  until  the  thirty-first  of  the  present 
month,  on  which  date  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Re- 
lations offered  to  name  the  securities  that  Peru  might 
be  ready  to  propose. 

Ricardo  Ortiz  de  Zevallos. 
M.  R.  Lira. 

In  Lima,  December  27,  1895. 


Proceedings  of  the  Conference  Held  Between  Minister 
of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Peru  and  Minister  of  Chile 
in  Peru. 

[Translation.] 

[December  31,  1895.] 

Under  date  of  this  day,  met  in  the  Ministry  of 
Foreign  Relations,  the  Minister  of  the  Department, 
Doctor  Don  Ricardo  Ortiz  de  Zevallos,  and  the  Envoy 


96 

Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Chile, 
Don  Maximo  R.  Lira.  • 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  said  that  the 
Government  and  the  Congress  had  interested  them- 
selves in  a  very  especial  manner  in  the  payment  of 
the  ten  millions  that  Peru  would  have  to  deliver  to 
Chile  in  case  the  plebiscite  should  be  favorable  to 
her;  that,  with  this  object  in  view,  the  Chambers  had 
fully  authorized  the  Government  to  raise  a  loan  of 
ten  million  soles;  and  that,  by  a  special  law  to  meet 
the  respective  interest,  it  had  placed  a  tax  on  the  salt 
monopoly,  the  product  of  which  would  be,  the  Govern- 
ment estimated,  a  million  soles,  annually,  as  a  mini- 
mum. He  added  that  this  security  could  be  duplicated, 
but  that  in  any  case,  Peru  would  engage  to  effect  the 
delivery  of  a  million  a  year,  encumbering  the  products 
of  the  custom-house  at  Callao,  which  is  the  Republic's 
most  reliable  source  of  income,  to  that  end.  This  is 
the  security,  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  said, 
that  the  Government  of  Peru  offers  to  the  Government 
of  Chile  until  it  succeeds  in  placing  the  loan,  the 
payment  of  which  could  not  be  better  guaranteed ;  and 
all  this  without  prejudice  to  Chile's  retaining  the  ter- 
ritories occupied  and  receiving  the  revenues  from  the 
custom-houses  in  them. 

The  Minister  of  Chile  replied  that  from  the  state- 
ment to  which  he  had  just  listened  it  was  clear  that 
the  Government  of  Peru  had  occupied  itself  in  devis- 
ing means  to  secure  as  a  loan  the  sum  of  the  eventual 
ransom  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  but  that  had  not  demon- 
strated that  it  would  be  obtained  with  certainty.  In- 
deed, it  was  conceivable  that  the  capitalists  to  whom 
it  might  have  to  resort  would  not  furnish  the  money 
because  they  might  deem  the  security  of  the  monopoly 
on  salt  insufficient,  and,  in  that  case,  since  Peru  would 


97 

not  have  been  able  to  meet  the  payment  of  the  in- 
demnity, the  plebiscitary  decision  would  remain  in- 
effective, which  was  precisely  what  the  Government 
of  Chile  desired  to  avoid.  So,  therefore,  as  the  se- 
curity presented  by  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations 
would  be  limited  to  the  offer  he  had  made  to  pay  Chile 
annually  a  million  soles,  as  a  minimum,  on  account  of 
the  said  indemnity  in  the  event  of  not  having  found 
a  capitalist  that  would  lend  the  sum  total  of  it,  Chile, 
in  reality,  would  have  to  serve  as  a  money-lender,  and 
this  would  be  absolutely  unacceptable. 

After  a  prolonged  debate  regarding  this  point,  the 
Minister  of  Chile  said  that  he  deemed  it  unnecessary 
to  consult  his  Government  in  order  to  be  able  to  de- 
clare the  aforementioned  proposal  unacceptable;  and 
he  concluded  by  saying  that  it  was  now  time  to  effect 
the  exchange  of  communications  agreed  on  with  Senor 
Porras  in  order  to  summarize  the  results  of  these  con- 
ferences, and  that  he  would  await,  consequently,  the 
respective  one  that  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations 
would  have  occasion  to  give  him. 

Ricardo  Ortiz  de  Zevallos. 
M.  R.  Lira. 
In  Lima,  December  31,  1895. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Peru  to  Minister  of 
Chile  in  Peru. 

[Translation.] 
(Number  2.) 

Ministry  of   Foreign   Relations. 

Lima,  February  3,  1896. 
Mr.  Minister: 

In  conformity  with  what  was  agreed  on  during  the 
last  conference  held  at  this  office  between  Your  Ex- 


98 

cellency  and  the  undersigned,  I  proceed  to  summarize 
the  result  of  the  points  that  were  discussed,  which  ap- 
pears in  the  twelve  protocols  signed  to  that  effect. 

It  is  to  be  regretted  that  it  was  impossible  to  arrive 
at  a  final  solution  of  a  question  that  seemed  no  longer 
to  present  any  difficulties,  when,  in  the  conference — 
arranged  by  Your  Excellency — of  August  5  last,  Your 
Excellency  said  that  the  purpose  for  which  it  had  been 
done  was  to  invite  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations 
of  Peru  to  discuss  the  bases  of  the  protocol  referred 
to  in  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  of  October  20, 
1883.  It  seems  therefore  absolutely  necessary  to  the 
undersigned  to  explain  why  an  agreement  has  no"t  been 
reached,  while  placing  on  record  the  good  will  that 
the  Peruvian  Chancellery  has  always  manifested  by 
confining  itself  to  demanding  the  strict  fulfillment  of 
the  part  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  that  has  remained 
pending.  Unfortunately,  it  has  been  impossible  hither- 
to to  discuss  for  a  single  moment  the  manner  of 
effecting  the  plebiscite,  on  the  result  of  which  has 
remained  dependent  the  future  nationality  of  the  prov- 
inces of  Tacna  and  Arica,  because  Your  Excellency 
exacted,  without  taking  into  account  the  express  tenor 
of  Clause  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  guaranties  in 
advance  for  the  payment  of  the  ten  millions,  when 
that  Treaty  says  in  a  clear  and  definitive  manner  that : 

' '  an  especial  protocol,  which  will  be  considered  an 
integral  part  of  the  present  Treaty,  will  establish 
the  manner  in  which  the  plebiscite  is  to  take  place 
and  the  terms  and  periods  of  payment  of  the  ten 
millions  by  the  country  that  shall  become  owner 
of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica. ' ' 

Having  made  this  declaration,  which  I  consider 
necessary,  I  proceed  to  recall  the  course  taken  by  the 
conferences  that  both  the  undersigned  and  his  pre- 


99 

decessors  have  held  with  Your  Excellency  and  which 
are  the  subject  of  the  aforementioned  twelve  protocols. 

I  have  explained  that  the  first  conference  was  held 
for  the  purpose  of  discussing  the  bases  of  the  protocol 
referred  to  in  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon. 
Senor  Don  Manuel  Candamo,  Minister  of  Foreign  Re- 
lations and  a  member  of  the  Council  of  Government,  in 
spite  of  the  hesitation  he  showed  in  the  first  con- 
ference, to  discuss  this  subject,  because  of  the  transit- 
ory character  of  the  Government  to  which  he  belonged, 
was  willing  to  take  up  the  subject  in  the  second  inter- 
view, and  he  declared  himself  ready  to  hear  the  pro- 
posals which,  with  that  design,  Your  Excellency  might 
see  fit  to  make  to  him.  However,  as  appears  in  the 
aforementioned  protocol,  Your  Excellency  confined 
yourself  to  proposing  the  acquisition,  on  the  part  of 
Chile,  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica  by  direct 
arrangement:  a  proposal  that  Senor  Candamo  de- 
clared unacceptable  as  being  contrary  to  the  Treaty 
of  Ancon  and  to  the  national  sentiment. 

Your  Excellency  then  exacted  a  previous  guaranty 
of  the  payment  of  the  indemnity,  in  order  to  discuss 
afterward  the  principal  question,  namely,  the  bases 
of  the  plebiscite.  In  that  conference,  Your  Excellency 
declined  to  accept  bonds  of  the  public  debt,  and  he 
desired  to  limit  the  period  of  the  payment  of  the  in- 
demnity to  one  month  after  the  promulgation  of  the 
plebiscitary  decision. 

In  the  third  conference,  Your  Excellency  insisted 
on  a  previous  guaranty  suggesting  at  the  close  that 
for  this  guaranty  might  be  substituted  some  provision 
that  would  otherwise  assure  the  definitive  solution  of 
the  question  relative  to  the  future  nationality  of  the 
territory  of  the  provinces  mentioned.  In  the  following 
protocol,  that  of  October  4,  Senor  Doctor  Porras,  my 


100 

predecessor,  who  had  assumed  charge  of  the  portfolio 
of  Foreign  Belations,  in  continuance  of  conferences  and 
seeking  a  practical  solution  that  would  in  no  way 
wound  national  sentiments,  proposed,  as  a  means  of 
surmounting  all  the  difficulties  and  with  a  noble  and 
elevated  design,  that  of  mutually  renouncing  the  in- 
demnity ;  because  he  did  not  believe  in  the  acquisition 
of  those  inhabited  territories  by  the  payment  of  a 
sum  of  money.  Your  Excellency,  without  expressing 
himself  in  a  definitive  manner  as  to  the  substance  of 
this  proposal,  offered  to  consult  his  Government  re- 
garding it ;  and,  on  October  8,  Your  Excellency  replied 
ftiat  the  said  proposal  had  not  been  accepted  by  his 
Chancellery;  and  the  conference  was  continued, 
Your  Excellency  indicating  that  it  would  be  op- 
portune to  discuss  the  question  of  security,  in  spite 
of  the  remarks  made  by  this  office,  that  Chile 
was  amply  secured  by  the  possession  of  the  pledge, 
that  is,  the  territory  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  and 
by  the  sentiment  of  nationality,  which  is  the  best 
possible  stimulus  and  sufficient,  in  any  event,  to 
guarantee  the  payment  of  the  indemnity.  As  the 
negotiations  of  October  9  were  suspended,  because 
it  was  impossible  to  arrive  at  an  accord,  and  as  it  was 
agreed  that  a  note  should  be  passed  by  both  parties 
in  which  would  be  made  to  appear  the  reasons  why 
a  solution  in  that  respect  had  not  been  reached,  it  was 
decided  on  October  24  that  what  had  been  determined 
above  should  be  declared  void,  and  that  another  con- 
sultation should  be  presented  to  the  Government  of 
Chile  in  order  that  the  idea  of  the  bases  of  the  plebi- 
scite might  be  carried  forward,  while  deferring  the 
point  that  had  given  rise  to  the  difficulties. 

Your  Excellency's  reply  in  the  conference  of  Oc- 
tober 30  was  negative,  and  it  provoked,  on  the  part 


101 

of  Doctor  Porras,  the  definitive  declaration  that  he 
could  not  agree  to  the  subordination  of  the  plebiscite 
to  the  obligation  of  the  immediate  delivery  of  the  ten 
millions  of  the  ransom.  Afterward,  when  the  under- 
signed had  assumed  charge  of  the  portofolio  of 
Foreign  Relations,  he  held  with  Your  Excellency  his 
first  conference  on  December  17  of  last  year,  in  which, 
while  standing  by  the  same  declarations,  he  strove  to 
make  progress  in  the  agreement  that  was  to  fix  the 
bases  of  the  plebiscite,  without  prejudice  to  discuss- 
ing afterward  the  security  for  the  payment  of  the  ten 
millions,  a  subject  which,  he  added,  especially  pre- 
occupied the  Peruvian  Government,  and  one  whose 
solution  was  complementary  to  the  other.  Your  Ex- 
cellency was  unwilling  to  discuss  the  question  in  this 
manner,  and  Your  Excellency  declared  that  this  pro- 
posal had  been  presented  by  Sefior  Porras  and  had 
been,  as  Your  Excellency  said,  already  eliminated. 

In  view  of  the  state  in  which  the  discussion  was  left 
and  of  Your  Excellency's  exigencies  that  a  previous 
security  should  be  furnished  for  the  ten  millions 
prior  to  considering  the  modus  operandi  of  the  plebi- 
scite, the  undersigned,  as  appears  in. the  protocol  of 
December  27  of  last  year,  requested  that  Your  Ex- 
cellency should  express,  in  a  concrete  manner,  the 
conditions  that  should  be  possessed  by  the  guaranties 
demanded  by  Your  Excellency's  Government;  but 
Your  Excellency  replied  that,  as  he  had  made  clear 
in  another  conference,  it  was  not  his  Government's 
part  to  indicate  the  securities  that  Peru  might  be  able 
to  present,  and  therefore  he  hoped  that  this  office 
would  designate  those  that  it  could  offer. 

On  December  31  last  was  held  the  last  conference, 
during  which  the  undersigned  said  textually: 


102 

"that  the  Government  and  the  Congress  had  inter- 
ested themselves  in  a  very  especial  manner  in  the 
payment  of  the  ten  millions  that  Peru  would  have 
to  deliver  to  Chile  in  case  the  plebiscite  should  be 
favorable  to  her ;  that,  with  this  object  in  view,  the 
Chambers  had  fully  authorized  the  Government 
to  raise  a  loan  of  ten  million  soles;  and  that  by  a 
special  law  to  meet  the  respective  interest,  it  had 
,  placed  a  tax  on  the  salt  monopoly,  the  product  of 
which  would  be,  the  Government  estimated,  a  mil- 
lion soles,  annually,  as  a  minimum.  He  added  that 
this  security  could  be  duplicated,  but  that,  in  any 
case,  Peru  would  engage  to  effect  the  delivery  of 
a  million  a  year,  encumbering  the  products  of  the 
cutom -house  at  Callao,  which  is  the  Republic's 
most  reliable  source  of  income,  to  that  end.  This 
is  the  security  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations 
said,  that  the  Government  of  Peru  offers  to  the 
Government  of  Chile  until  she  succeeds  in  placing 
the  loan,  the  payment  of  which  could  not  be  better 
guaranteed;  and  all  this  without  prejudice  to 
Chile's  retaining  the  territories  occupied  and  re- 
ceiving the  revenues  from  the  custom-houses  in 
them." 

Your  Excellency  did  not  accept  these  guaranties  and 
securities,  considering  it  unnecessary  to  consult  his 
Government,  and  he  concluded  by  saying  that  it  was 
now  time  to  effect  the  exchange  of  communications 
agreed  on  with  Senor  Porras,  in  order  to  summarize 
the  result  of  the  conferences. 

This  is  the  reason  and  motive  of  the  present  com- 
munication; but,  before  concluding  it,  I  beg  to  declare 
that  Peru  has  always  been,  as  she  is  at  present,  re- 
solved to  fulfil]  faithfully  and  loyally  what  was  stipu- 
lated in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  and  that,  in  spite  of  the 
clear  and  precise  terms  of  Clause  III  of  the  said  Treaty, 
she  has  sought  a  proper  and  rational  means  of  re- 
moving obstacles  that  had  not  been  foreseen  and  that 


103 

ought  not  to  have  presented  themselves  in  the  discus- 
sion of  the  modus  operandi  of  the  plebiscite  that  is 
to  decide  the  nationality  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna 
and  Arica.  I  likewise  place  it  on  record  that  Peru  has 
not  only  expressed  her  desire,  but  also  the  possibility 
of  effecting  the  payment  of  the  ransom. 

The  circumstance  mentioned  by  Your  Excellency  on 
more  than  one  occasion,  of  his  not  being  able  to  ex- 
ceed his  definite  and  concrete  instructions,  has  car- 
ried negotiations  to  a  point  where,  in  the  judgment  of 
the  undersigned,  they  are  contrary  to  the  stipulations 
agreed  on  in  Clause  III  in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon. 

The  Treaty  of  1883,  now  so  often  recalled,  gave  to 
Chile,  in  a  definite  manner  in  its  second  Article,  the 
province  of  Tarapaca,  and  it  clearly  provided,  in 
Article  III,  that  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica 
would  be  possessed  by  Chile  for  the  period  of  ten 
years,  and  that,  after  the  expiration  of  that  period,  a 
plebiscite,  by  popular  vote,  would  decide  whether  the 
territory  of  those  provinces  should  remain  finally  un- 
der the  power  and  sovereignty  of  Chile  or  continue  to 
be  a  part  of  the  Peruvian  territory.  As  may  be  seen, 
this  clear  and  definitive  clause  subordinated  only  and 
exclusively  the  future  nationality  of  those  provinces  to 
a  vote  expressed  in  a  free  plebiscite.  The  obligation 
of  the  payment  of  ten  millions  by  the  country  to 
which  the  said  provinces  should  be  annexed  does  not 
constitute  nor  can  it  constitute  anything  more  than 
the  incurring  of  a  debt,  and  hence  in  the  second 
paragraph  of  the  article  mentioned  it  is  said  that  in 
the  special  protocol,  in  which  was  to  be  established 
the  manner  in  which  the  plebiscite  should  be  held, 
would  also  be  fixed  the  terms  and  periods  in  which  the 
ten  millions  would  be  paid.  Peru,  consequently  upon 
her  obligations,  has  only  demanded  that  steps  be  taken 


104 

to  fix  the  bases  on  which  the  plebiscite  should  be  held 
and  the  conditions  of  the  Treaty  strictly  carried  out. 
She  also  testifies  that  she  is  preparing  to  make 
the  payment  in  case  the  result  of  the  plebiscite  shall 
be  favorable  to  her;  and,  although  the  recovery  of 
those  territories  is  not  subject  to  the  payment  of  the 
ten  millions,  she  agrees  that  Chile  shall  retain  the 
pledge  while  she  is  effecting  the  delivery  of  the 
ransom. 

If  the  desire  that  this  Chancellery  has  shown  to 
manifest  the  good  will  with  which  it  is  animated,  in 
order  to  remove  every  obstacle,  has  not  been  sufficient 
to  bring  about  a  settlement,  it  is  therefore  necessary 
to  establish  the  rights  that  are  derived  both  in  respect 
of  Chile  and  of  Peru,  from  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  which 
ought  to  be  faithfully  fulfilled.  It  is  demonstrated 
that,  according  to  the  Treaty,  the  nationality  of  Tacna 
and  Arica  is  subject  only  and  exclusively  to  the  result 
of  the  plebiscite  and  that  it  is  in  nowise  subordinate 
to  the  payment  of  the  ransom,  and  in  spite  of  this 
fact  I  shall  place  it  on  record  that  Peru  has  expressed 
her  desire  to  and  possibility  of  paying  the  ten  millions, 
as  soon  as  the  plebiscite  shall  have  been  favorable 
to  her.  "What  she  does  not  and  can  not  accept,  how- 
ever, as  being  contrary  to  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  is 
that  the  future  nationality  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna 
and  Arica,  and  even  the  protocol  in  which  are  to  be 
fixed  the  bases  of  the  plebiscite — a  principal  and  neces- 
sary part  of  the  Treaty — should  be  subordinated  to  the 
payment  of  the  ransom;  an  accessory  condition  that 
constitutes  a  different  obligation  and  one  in  nowise 
subordinated  to  the  prior  one. 

Nor  can  it  be  maintained  that  Chile  is  afraid  of 
being  deprived  of  the  payment  of  the  indemnity  when 
the  plebiscite  shall  have  been  effected  in  a  manner 


105 

favorable  to  Peru,  because,  in  addition  to  holding  the 
pledge  in  such  a  case,  she  would  have  the  greatest 
moral  guaranty  that  one  people  can  furnish  to  another, 
that  is,  national  sentiment  exercising  itself  in  all  its 
plenitude  in  order  to  reincorporate  provinces  which 
by  popular  vote,  would  have  manifested  their  desire  to 
return  to  the  bosom  of  the  common  country.  The 
Chilean  Chancellery  may  not  therefore  entertain 
doubts  in  this  respect,  and  to  the  great  advantage 
of  the  two  countries  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  obstacles 
will  be  removed  and  that  when  both  parties  shall  ful- 
fill the  conditions  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  this  impor- 
tant question  may  be  settled  in  a  definitive  manner. 

I  reiterate  to  Your  Excellency  the  assurances  of  my 
highest  and  most  distinguished  consideration. 

Ricardo  Ortiz  de  Zevallos. 

To  His  Excellency, 

Senor  Don  Maximo  E.  Lira, 

Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister   Plenipoten- 
tiary of  Chile. 


Minister  of  Chile  in  Peru  to  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs  of  Peru. 


(Number  213.) 


[Translation.] 

Legation  of  Chile. 

Lima,  February  10, 1896. 


Mr.  Minister: 

I  have  had  the  honor  to  receive  Your  Excellency's 
courteous  communication  number  2,  dated  third  of 
the  present  month,  in  which  Your  Excellency  has  taken 


106 

the  opportunity  to  recall  and  summarize  the  discus- 
sions which,  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  into  effect 
what  was  stipulated  in  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of 
October  20,  1883,  the  undersigned  opened  with  the 
Peruvian  Chancellery  in  August  of  last  year.  In  that 
same  communication,  Your  Excellency  has  mentioned 
the  declarations  as  to  how  the  Government  of  Peru 
understands  that  article  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  and 
as  to  how  it  believes  it  will  have  discharged,  on  its 
part,  the  obligations  imposed  by  the  same  Treaty 
on  the  two  countries  that  set  their  signatures  to  it. 

Your  Excellency  will  have  to  permit  me,  in  replying 
to  his  note  mentioned,  to  amplify  the  recollections  it 
contains  and  to  emphasize  in  behalf  of  the  ideas  and 
procedures  which,  by  order  of  my  Government,  I  have 
maintained  during  the  negotiations  developed  in 
August  and  December,  1895,  and  the  reasons,  very 
substantial,  in  my  opinion,  that  made  them  perfectly 
acceptable.  Those  reasons  have  been  recorded  in  the 
minutes  or  protocols  of  the  respective  conferences, 
but  this  fact  does  not  prevent  their  being  reproduced 
here,  with  amplitude  sufficient  to  serve  the  purposes 
of  this  communication. 

Before  entering  on  the  subject,  I  desire,  neverthe- 
less, to  explain  why  this  Legation  began  the  nego- 
tiations with  which  I  am  occupying  myself,  during 
the  provisional  administration  of  the  Council  of 
Government  that  ruled  Peru  from  March  until  Sep- 
tember, 1895.  I  think  I  ought  to  do  so  because,  from 
the  beginning,  it  has  been  insinuated  that  the  initiative 
of  this  Legation  was  perhaps  extemporaneous,  it  being 
said  that  it  was  not  the  part  of  the  Council  of  Govern- 
ment, in  its  capacity  as  a  transitory  government,  "to 
touch" — so  the  Council  itself  expressed  it  in  its  mes- 
sage to  the  Congress — "on  questions  of  importance 
of  any  kind. ' ' 


107 

The  point  as  to  the  capacity  of  the  Council,  as  a 
constituted  Government  and  one  recognized  by  foreign 
powers,  to  treat  of  any  subject  of  an  international 
character,  is  irrelevant  to  the  discussion.  The  only 
thing  that  might  be  subject  to  doubt  was  the  expedi- 
ency of  doing  so,  because  of  the  brief  duration  of  its 
power.  However,  if  doubts  existed,  they  disappeared 
in  respect  of  the  transcendent  question  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  at  the  moment  in  which,  by  accrediting  a  Le- 
gation to  Bolivia  and  by  seeking  to  accredit  another 
to  Chile,  it  signified  that  it  was  prepared  and  qualified 
to  deal  with  it.  It  is  inconceivable  that  it  should 
have  been  otherwise,  because,  evidently,  it  could  not 
have  sent  Ministers  to  those  Republics,  without  provid- 
ing them  with  instructions  as  to  that  capital  question. 

My  Government ,  however,  did  not  share  those 
doubts.  It  believed,  on  the  contrary,  that  there  was 
positive  advantage  in  undertaking  the  examination 
of  this  question  with  the  Council  in  which  were  rep- 
resented the  party  that  had  just  been  governing  Peru 
and  the  one  that  had  conducted  a  great  revolution  to 
overthrow  it.  Any  treaty  negotiated  by  that  Council 
would  have  possessed  immense  prestige  in  the  opinion 
of  the  country,  above  all,  if  it  be  borne  in  mind  that  the 
work  of  the  provisional  Government  was  to  be  revised 
by  the  executive  and  legislative  powers  of  the  new 
administration.  Unfortunately,  the  negotiations 
opened  by  the  Right  Excellent  Council  did  not  lead 
to  any  result,  but  if  any  had  been  reached,  it  would 
have  fully  justified  the  foresight  of  my  Government. 

I  now  proceed  to  take  up  what  constitutes  the  main 
purpose  of  this  communication,  that  is,  to  establish 
and  demonstrate  that  the  Government  of  Chile  has 
exerted  itself  greatly  to  reach  an  agreement  with  Your 
Excellency's  that  would  make  it  possible  to  execute 


108 

the  part  of  the  Treaty  of  October  20,  18S3,  that  re- 
fers to  the  settlement  of  the  definitive  nationality 
of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica;  and  that,  if  it 
has  not  succeeded  in  doing  so  hitherto,  it  is  because 
Your  Excellency's  Government  has  insisted  on  at- 
tributing to  that  Treaty  a  meaning  that  would  release 
Peru,  almost  wholly,  from  the  fulfillment  of  the  ob- 
ligations she  contracted  by  it,  while  Chile  would  al- 
ways remain  subject  to  the  strict  fulfillment  of  hers. 

As  soon  as  the  negotiations  to  which  I  refer  were 
opened,  it  naturally  became  necessary  to  determine 
the  concrete  point  that  must  be  the  material  of  the 
first  agreement. 

Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  1883  provided  that 
the  territory  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica 
should  continue  to  be  possessed  by  Chile  and  sub- 
ject to  her  legislation  and  authority  for  the  period 
of  ten  years,  reckoned  from  that  ratification.  After 
the  expiration  of  that  period,  a  plebiscite  would  de- 
cide, by  popular  vote,  whether  that  territory  would 
remain  definitively  under  the  power  and  sovereignty 
of  Chile,  or  whether  it  would  continue  to  be  part  of 
Peru.  Whichsoever  of  the  two  countries  that  should 
be  favored  by  the  plebiscite  would  have  to  pay  to 
the  other  ten  million  pesos,  and  it  added  that : 

"A  special  protocol,  which  will  be  considered  an 
integral  part  of  the  present  Treaty,  will  establish 
the  manner  in  which  the  plebiscite  is  to  take  place 
and  the  terms  and  periods  for  the  payment  of  the 
ten  millions  by  the  country  that  shall  become 
owner  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica." 

The  principal  points  that  we  negotiators  of  the 
Complementary  Protocol  of  the  Treaty  of  1883  ought 
to  consider  are  two  therefore:     the  organization  of 


109 

the  plebiscite  and  the  determination  of  the  conditions 
of  the  payment  of  the  indemnity.  It  was  necessary 
that  the  preference  be  given  to  the  discussion  of  one 
or  the  other  of  these  two  points.  Sehor  Candamo 
proposed,  in  the  conference  of  August  20,  that  it 
should  begin  with  the  plebiscite  and  "by  determining 
how  the  authority  that  would  preside  over  it  should 
be  constituted.  ' '  On  my  part,  I  suggested  that  our 
first  agreement,  which  I  then  deemed  very  easy,  would 
concern  the  form,  periods  and  terms  of  payment  of  the 
indemnity.  There  was  a  very  strong  reason,  in  my 
opinion,  as  to  why  the  preference  should  be  given  to 
this  procedure.  The  organization  of  the  plebiscite 
would  necessarily  impose  on  us  a  considerable  labor, 
and  it  would  be  unwise  therefore  to  attack  it  without 
being  assured  in  advance  that,  as  a  result,  it  would 
not  be  futile.  Now,  as  the  only  thing  that  could  frus- 
trate it  would  be  some  difficulty  relative  to  the  payment 
of  the  indemnity,  the  most  elementary  prudence 
counseled  that  we  should  ascertain  at  once  whether 
such  a  difficulty  existed  and  that  we  should  face  it 
and  eliminate  it.  Seiior  Candamo  must  have  found 
some  force  in  my  remarks,  since  he  accepted  my  sug- 
gestion without  opposition ;  and  that  it  was  in  harmony 
with  a  wise  prevision  is  proven  to  the  utmost  evidence 
by  subsequent  events.  The  difficulty  that  I  feared 
might  appear  in  the  last  stage  of  the  negotiation  pre- 
sented itself  in  the  first,  and  that  with  such  serious 
characteristics  that  a  discussion  of  four  months  has 
not  been  sufficient  to  remove  it. 

It  did  not  spring  from  any  fault  of  Chile's,  however, 
nor  was  it  due  to  the  fact  that  her  Minister  in  Lima 
had  reversed  the  natural  order  of  the  discussions. 
It  arose,  and  it  still  exists,  because  Peru,  contrary  to 
everything  that  was  to  be  expected,  was  not  prepared 


110 

for  the  fulfillment  of  the  obligations  imposed  on  her 
by  the  Treaty  of  1883  as  a  condition  for  the  reestab- 
lishment  of  her  sovereignty  in  the  territory  of  Tacna 
and  Arica.  No  one  has  invented  the  obstacle ;  it  came 
to  light  because  it  existed,  and  a  variation  in  the  order 
of  the  negotiation  of  the  protocol  would  not  have 
caused  it  to  vanish. 

His  Excellency  Seiior  Candamo  and  the  under- 
signed, being  now  in  agreement  that  the  first  question 
we  ought  to  discuss  was  the  payment  of  the  indemnity, 
thought  was  naturally  given  to  the  determination  of 
the  period  within  which  it  would  have  to  be  effected. 
After  certain  ideas  were  expressed  by  each  of  us  re- 
garding this  point,  the  discussion  was  limited  to  the 
terms  of  the  proposal  that  is  incorporated  in  the 
minutes  of  August  20,  as  follows : 

"The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  requested 
the  Plenipotentiary  of  Chile  to  make  his  proposal 
more  precise  in  this  respect,  and  the  latter  said 
that  an  agreement  might  be  made  somewThat  like 
the  following:  a  month  after  the  promulgation  of 
the  plebiscitary  decision,  Chile,  if  the  decision 
were  adverse  to  her,  would  return  to  Peru  the 
provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  and  Peru  would 
pay  to  Chile  the  sums  in  which  she  would  become 
indebted  to  her.  Chile,  in  turn,  would  contract  an 
identical  obligation.  It  is  understood,  of  course, 
that  this  payment  must  be  sufficiently  guaran- 
teed." 

Both  Seiior  Candamo,  first,  and  Seiior  Porras,  after- 
ward, deemed  the  establishment  of  the  period  of  one 
month  after  the  plebiscite,  as  that  within  which  the 
payment  of  the  indemnity  by  Peru  would  have  to  be 
effected,  unacceptable,  owing  to  its  brevity.  I  have 
a  right  to  believe,  nevertheless,  that  Your  Excellency's 


Ill 

Government  looked  with  some  favor  on  the  reasons 
that  we  advanced  in  support  of  a  decision  in  favor  of 
a  brief  period,  because  an  agreement  was  reached  at 
last  on  one  that  differed  little  from  the  one  suggested 
by  the  undersigned.  Indeed,  the  expediency  of  re- 
stricting the  period  as  much  as  possible  was  not  doubt- 
ful. We  discussed  the  basis  of  this  hypothesis — that 
•the  popular  vote  might  be  favorable  to  Peru — and  I 
said  that  this  would  oblige  our  Governments  to  carry 
out  the  plebiscitary  decision  without  delay,  in  order 
not  to  prolong  for  a  greater  time  than  necessary  an 
abnormal  situation  and  one  that  would  necessarily  be 
disagreeable  to  both  countries.  If  the  reincorporation 
of  Tacna  and  Arica  with  Peru  were  decreed  by  the 
people,  Chile  would  be  under  obligation  to  hasten  to 
surrender  that  territory  wherein  her  authority  would 
no  longer  have  dominion  or  prestige.  Peru,  in  turn, 
ought  also  to  feel  moved  irresistibly  to  hasten  with- 
out delay  to  the  call  of  her  former  provinces,  carrying 
to  them,  as  they  demanded  of  her  with  the  clamor  of 
their  votes,  her  banner,  her  authority  and  her  laws. 
Ordinary  expediency  would  counsel  and  impose  dis- 
occupation. 

The  situation  being  considered  in  this  manner,  the 
necessity  of  carrying  the  decision  of  the  plebiscite 
into  effect  immediately  after  it  should  be  announced, 
by  the  fulfillment,  on  the  part  of  the  two  countries 
bound  by  the  Treaty  of  1883,  of  all  the  obligations 
that  it  imposed  on  them,  would  become  therefore  all 
the  more  urgently  necessary.  However,  a  longer 
period  was  requested  on  the  part  of  Peru  than  the  one 
suggested  by  the  undersigned,  in  order  to  effect  the 
payment  of  the  ransom  of  the  territory  of  Tacna  and 
Arica.  In  the  conference  of  August  20,  Sehor  Can- 
damo  believed  that  of  one  year  indispensable,  and  in 


112 

the  conference  of  August  23,  that  of  six  months.  These 
periods  were  apparently  designed  to  give  Peru  time 
in  which  to  negotiate  the  acquirement  of  funds  for 
the  ransom.  When  the  negotiation  that  Senor  Can- 
damo  did  not  succeed  in  terminating  was  renewed 
with  Senor  Porras,  the  first  Minister  of  Foreign  Re- 
lations of  the  present  Government,  on  October  4,  the 
discussion  of  the  period  was  continued  until,  in  the 
conference  of  the  eighth  of  the  same  month,  Min- 
ister Porras  declared  that  Peru  did  not  need  a  period. 
It  was  agreed  nevertheless,  on  the  spontaneous  in- 
itiative of  the  undersigned,  that  the  payment  should 
be  made  three  months  after  the  official  promulgation 
of  the  decision  of  the  plebiscite. 

It  has  seemed  useful,  for  several  reasons,  to  recall 
here  these  incidents,  which  show  how  the  question — 
relative  to  the  period  within  which  Peru,  if  she  were 
favored  by  the  plebiscite,  was  to  effect  the  payment 
of  the  ransom  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica — 
arose,  developed  and  was  terminated.  By  means  of 
them,  it  is  demonstrated  that  the  suggestion  of  the 
period,  apparently  brief — if  it  were  not  so  in  reality — 
made  by  the  undersigned  was  merely  the  result  of  a 
desire  to  prevent  the  interval  of  transition  that  would 
succeed  the  plebiscite  from  lasting  longer  than  that 
which  would  be  strictly  necessary  to  enable  the  Chilean 
authorities  to  withdraw  from  it,  and  the  Peruvian 
authorities  to  occupy  it.  That  period  was  not  sug- 
gested as  a  means  of  pressure  or  as  a  demand;  and 
the  clearest  proof  that  the  Government  of  Peru  could 
not  feel  pressed  is  furnished  by  the  fact  that  the  im- 
mediate predecessor  of  Your  Excellency  ended  the  dis- 
cussion by  declaring,  in  the  conference  of  October  8, 

' '  that,  in  spite  of  the  facilities  granted  to  the  coun- 
try that  should  become  the  debtor,  from  conclu- 


113 

sions  clearly  to  be  deduced  from  Article  III  of  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon,  he  renounced  them  in  the  name 
of  his  Government,  since  Peru  was  absolutely  sure 
as  to  the  payment  of  the  indemnity — in  case  the 
plebiscitary  decision  should  be  favorable  to  her — 
within  any  period,  even  if  it  were  a  briefer  period 
than  that  of  one  month  fixed  by  the  Minister  of 
Chile." 

On  the  undersigned 's  initiative,  as  has  been  recalled, 
the  period  in  question  was  extended  to  three  months. 
Nevertheless,  over  that  discussion,  which  had  no  rea- 
son for  being  held,  as  may  be  seen  from  this  result,  two 
had  been  spent. 

Along  with  the  question  of  the  period  that  Peru 
would  have  for  the  payment  of  the  ransom  of  Tacna 
and  Arica,  was  presented,  in  the  conference  of  August 
20,  that  of  furnishing  a  security  that  would  guarantee 
the  effectiveness  of  the  payment.  On  this  point,  de- 
bated at  length  between  Senor  Porras  and  Your  Ex- 
cellency, an  agreement  was  found  to  be  impossible. 
Your  Excellency,  in  the  note  that  I  am  answering,  at- 
tributes to  this  demand  of  a  guaranty  the  lack  of  a 
result  in  the  negotiation  we  continued  until  December 
31  of  the  year  just  passed  and  places  it  among  the 
obstacles  "that  had  not  been  foreseen  and  that  ought 
not  to  have  presented  themselves"  in  discussing  the 
organization  of  the  plebiscite.  Your  Excellency  seems 
to  believe  that  the  discussion  ought  to  have  been 
limited  to  the  negotiations  opened  on  August  5,  1895, 
and  he  declares  that  it  is  to  be  regretted  that  it 
did  not  happen  thus. 

The  final  clause  of  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Oc- 
tober 20,  1883,  is  copied  literally  in  the  body  of  this 
communication,  and  to  it  I  refer  at  once  in  oroTer  to 
avoid  useless  repetitions  in  the  course  of  the  observ- 
ations that  follow. 


114 

The  negotiation  undertaken  by  the  undersigned  had 
as  its  object  the  arrangement  of  the  protocol  by  means 
of  which  the  inhabitants  of  Taena  and  Arica,  con- 
sulted in  a  popular  vote,  would  proceed  to  decide 
whether  that  territory  should  remain  annexed  to  Chile 
or  should  again  form  a  part  of  Peru. 

In  the  same  protocol,  however,  were  also  to  be  fixed 
the  terms  and  periods  in  which  should  be  paid  the  in- 
demnity that  would  be  laid  by  the  Treaty  on  the  coun- 
try that  might  obtain  the  definitive  possession  of  the 
said  territory.  As  the  payment  of  the  indemnity  was 
one  of  the  subjects  of  the  protocol,  it  was  necessary 
to  consider  it  at  some  stage  of  the  negotiation,  and 
as  it  came  up  first  of  all,  it  was  impossible  to  refuse 
to  contemplate  it  under  all  its  aspects.  One  of  them 
was  the  guaranty  of  payment.  On  her  part,  Chile 
hastened  to  offer,  in  this  respect,  all  the  guaranties 
that  might  be  desirable;  but  she  exacted,  naturally, 
in  reciprocity,  that  Peru  also  should  furnish  them. 
She  had  more  than  enough  reason  and  right  to  do  so. 

It  has  already  been  said — and  it  is  well  to  repeat 
it  here — that  the  situation  that  would  be  created  in 
the  territory  that  she  occupies  to-day  would  be  ab- 
solutely unacceptable  to  Chile  after  the  plebiscite  in 
which  its  inhabitants  would  have  expressly  declared 
that  they  did  not  wash  to  continue  to  be  subject  to 
her  authority.  She  understood  that,  in  this  case,  it 
would  have  been  her  most  elementary  duty  to  with- 
draw therefrom  immediately,  and  she  proceeded  wisely 
when  she  attempted  to  guard  herself  against  the  peril 
of  having  to  prolong  the  occupation  against  her  will. 
However,  as  she  would  necessarily  have  to  continue 
it,  if  Peru  did  not  opportunely  fulfill  one  of  the  es- 
sential conditions  of  the  ransom,  as  was  the  payment 
of  the  indemnity,  and  as  such  a  contingency  was  not 


115 

unlikely,  she  said:  "I  will  not  go  to  the  plebiscite 
without  having  obtained  in  advance  the  absolute  as- 
surance that  it  can  and  will,  in  reality,  produce  all  its 
effect. ' '    Behold,  the  reason  why  she  asks  for  security ! 

She  also  enjoys  the  unquestionable  right  to  ask  for 
it.  Your  Excellency  knows  quite  well  that  interna- 
tional law  accepts  incorporation  in  treaties  of  the  se- 
curities or  guaranties  that  add  value  to  their  stipu- 
lations and  safeguard  them  from  possible  violations. 
These  guaranties  have  varied  in  character  in  the 
course  of  time.  They  were  only  moral  during  the  days 
in  which  it  was  deemed  a  sufficient  guaranty  that 
sovereigns  should  bind  the  fulfillment  of  their  word 
with  an  oath.  Afterward,  they  were  material,  such 
as  the  delivery  of  hostages  or  the  surrender  of  a 
portion  of  territory  as  a  pledge.  The  request  for  a 
guaranty  presented  by  the  undersigned  to  Your  Ex- 
cellency 's  Government  is  not  unusual  therefore  or  con- 
trary to  law;  and  if  an  attempt  were  made  to  say 
that  the  protocol  in  question  is  not,  strictly  speaking, 
a  treaty,  I  should  confine  myself  to  recalling,  in  order 
to  show  that  if  it  is  not  so  in  name,  it  is  so  in  sub- 
stance, that  when  it  is  adopted,  it  will  have  to  be 
considered  an  integral  part  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  of 
1883  and,  consequently,  the  same  international  value. 

Your  Excellency  affirms,  however,  in  his  note  that 
the  Government  of  Peru  has  made  preparation  to 
furnish  guaranties,  and  he  enumerates  those  it  has 
offered,  adding  simply  that  the  Minister  of  Chile  did 
not  accept  them.  This  forces  me  to  complete  Your 
Excellency's  declaration,  by  showing  that  the  guar- 
anties offered  have  been  such  only  in  name  or  that  they 
have  seemed  unacceptable  for  reason  of  great  weight. 

The  minutes  of  the  Conference  held  on  October  8 
show  that  when  the  undersigned  presented  his  re- 
quest for  guaranties,  he  obtained  the  following  reply : 


116 

'^The  Minister  of  Foreign  Belations  denied  that 
it  was  necessary  to  establish  other  guaranties 
than  those  that  might  be  deduced  from  the  con- 
vention itself  to  which  recourse  should  be  had  in 
fixing  the  conditions  of  the  plebiscite  and  from  the 
signatures  on  which  that  treaty  would  depend; 
that,  in  respect  of  the  obligation  of  Peru,  Chile 
was  amply  guaranteed  by  the  possession  of  the 
pledge,  that  is,  the  territory  of  Tacna  and  Arica, 
and  by  the  sentiment  of  nationality,  which  is  the 
best  possible  stimulus  and  sufficient  in  any  case  to 
guarantee  the  payment  of  the  indemnity. ' ' 

The  possession  of  the  territory  of  Tacna  and  Arica 
is  the  only  real  guaranty  that  seems  to  be  offered 
here.  Minister  Porras  believes  that  Chile  would  be 
able  and  even  ought  to  agree  that  the  plebiscite  should 
be  effected  and  that  Chile  should  continue  to  occupy 
that  territory,  if  the  decision  of  the  plebiscite  were 
favorable  to  Peru,  until  the  latter  had  paid  its  ransom. 
It  may  be  understood,  however,  without  any  effort, 
that  this  solution  would  necessarily  be  unacceptable 
to  Chile.  Indeed,  if  what  is  sought  is  precisely  to  put 
an  end  to  the  present  situation  of  the  territories  of 
Tacna  and  Arica  and  to  Chilean  occupation,  in  case 
Peru  should  recover  them,  how  could  Chile  be  willing 
that  the  solution  of  the  difficulty  should  be  a  prolong- 
ation, for  an  indefinite  time  and  in  a  less  dignified 
manner  in  so  far,  as  she  would  be  concerned,  of  the 
very  situation  to  which  it  is  desired  and  is  necessary 
to  put  an  end?  As  to  the  occupation,  if  what  Chile 
needs  and  seeks  is  security,  in  order  not  to  prolong 
the  situation,  in  case  the  plebiscite  should  be  adverse 
to  her,  how  can  it  be  said  that  she  will  obtain  that 
security  by  the  continuance  of  the  same  occupation? 

Senor  Porras  went  further.  He  said  that  Chile 
would  be  amply  secured  by  the  signatures  that  would 


117 

seal  the  convention  and  by  the  sentiment  of  nation 
ality.    To  this  Your  Excellency  added,  in  amplification 
of  the  same  remark,  that  Chile 

"would  have  the  greatest  moral  guaranty  that  one 
people  can  furnish  to  another,  that  is,  national 
sentiment  exercising  itself  in  all  its  plenitude  in 
order  to  reincorporate  provinces,  which,  by  popu- 
lar vote,  would  have  manifested  their  desire  io 
return  to  the  bosom  of  the  common  country." 

I  will  certainly  not  deny,  Mr.  Minister,  that  respect 
for  a  signature  placed  by  a  Government  at  the  end 
of  a  treaty  or  any  other  kind  of  engagement  and  the 
sentiment  of  nationality  are  moral  guaranties  that  give 
vigor  to  the  stipulations  of  a  treaty;  but  these  guar- 
anties are  not  those  that  are  expressly  spoken  of 
when  two  nations  bind  themselves  by  means  of  a 
treaty,  because  they  are  among  those  that  are  always 
presupposed  and  are  always  regarded  as  incorporated 
in  each  and  every  one  of  its  clauses.  It  is  taken 
for  granted,  when  a  treaty  is  read,  that  the  faith 
and  honor  of  the  nations  that  signed  it  guarantee  its 
execution ;  but  this  does  not  prevent  the  entrance  into 
it  of  securities  of  another  nature  also,  which  express 
the  fear  that  the  moral  ones  may  not  be  sufficient  to 
assure  its  execution;  and  this  is  the  case  because  it 
does  not  always  happen  that  nations  can,  even  if  they 
earnestly  desire  to  do  so,  honor  their  plighted  word. 
These  observations  are  also  applicable  to  the  offer 
of  the  sentiment  of  nationality  as  a  guaranty.  How- 
ever intense  this  sentiment  may  be,  it  can  not  always 
do  everything,  and  history  abounds  in  examples  of  its 
unreliability. 

The  first  proposal  of  Senor  Porras,  to  the  intent 
that  Chile  should  accept  as  a  sufficient  guaranty  "the 


118 

retention  of  the  pledge,' '  was  renewed  by  Your  Ex- 
cellency in  the  conference  of  December  31,  with  the 
addition  that  Peru  would  deliver,  annually,  to  Chile  a 
million  soles  on  account  of  the  indemnity,  while  suf- 
ficient funds  were  being  secured  with  which  to  pay 
it  in  its  totality. 

It  has  already  been  explained  why  the  principal 
proposal  was  unacceptable ;  and  from  the  first  moment 
the  undersigned  believed — and  he  so  explained  to 
Your  Excellency — that  what  was  added  was  much  less 
so.  The  annual  installment  of  a  million  soles  would 
have  to  be  paid  in  case  Peru  might  not  be  able  to 
raise  the  loan  for  which  she  is  planning  in  order  to 
obtain  the  ten  millions  of  the  ransom.  It  is  to  be 
supposed  that  this  would  not  happen  for  lack  of  pa- 
triotism in  the  country  or  of  earnest  activity  on  the 
part  of  the  Government;  and  it  is  also  presumable 
that  if  the  first  efforts,  which  are  always  the  most 
vigorous,  should  fail  because  of  some  insuperable  ob- 
stacle, later  efforts,  in  which  the  enthusiasm  of  faith 
would  then  be  lacking,  might  not  be  more  fortunate. 
Suppose  then — which  is  probable — that  there  should 
be  no  loan,  that  the  temporary  situation  should  be- 
come a  definitive  situation,  that  the  indemnity  would 
be  paid  by  annual  installments  until  the  complete 
liquidation  of  the  debt,  and  that  Chile,  become  a  credi- 
tor, a  capitalist  and  a  surety  for  Peru,  would  have 
to  remain  in  Tacna  and  Arica  for  long  years.  For 
these  reasons,  I  thought  it  unnecessary  to  consult 
my  Government  as  to  the  proposal  of  Your  Excellency, 
and  I  declared  it  unacceptable. 

Among  the  moral  securities  offered,  I  ought  to  in- 
clude, finally,  that  which  Your  Excellency  deduces 
from  the  efforts  that  the  Executive  and  Legislative 
powers  of  Peru  have  begun  to  make  recently  in  order 


119 

to  create  resources  applicable  to  the  payment  of  the 
indemnity.  Your  Excellency  appeals  to  a  law  which, 
for  this  purpose,  has  laid  a  tax  on  the  consumption  of 
salt.  As  to  this  point,  I  already  had  the  honor  to  say 
to  Your  Excellency  in  our  conference  of  December  31, 
that  all  this  can  only  signify  to  Chile  a  manifestation 
of  good  will  on  the  part  of  Peru  to  honor  her  engage- 
ments; but  that,  as  a  real  guaranty,  it  would  have 
to  be  offered  not  to  Chile,  but  to  the  capitalists  that 
are  accustomed  to  make  a  business  of  loans.  In  any 
event,  there  would  always  remain  the  doubt  as  to 
whether  the  tax  on  the  consumption  of  salt  would  be 
a  sufficient  guaranty  in  the  eyes  of  a  capitalist,  and 
I  note  that  this  doubt  is  also  entertained  by  the 
national  press  and  even  by  functionaries  of  such 
lofty  category  as  His  Excellency  Senor  Billinghurst, 
the  first  Vice-President  of  the  Kepublic,  who  declared 
a  short  time  ago,  in  an  address  delivered  in  Tacna, 
that: 

"the  taxes  planned  by  the  Executive,  in  the  best 
of  cases,  will  always  be  insufficient  to  constitute 
a  fund  for  the  interest  and  amortization  required 
by  the  loan  of  a  million  pounds  sterling,  designed 
to  pay  for  the  liberation  of  Tacna  and  Arica. '  \ 

The  last  part  of  Your  Excellency's  note  is  intended 
to  make  clear  the  meaning  that  Peru  attaches  to  Ar- 
ticle III  of  the  Treaty  of  1883,  and,  in  this  respect, 
Your  Excellency  makes  assertions  that  I  must  con- 
tradict and  propounds  doctrines  that  are  not  those 
of  international  law. 

Your  Excellency  says  that  this  Article  made  the 
future  nationality  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Ar- 
iea  contingent  solely  and  exclusively  on  the  popular 
vote  expressed  in  a  free  plebiscite,  and  therefore  that 


120 

their  incorporation  with  Peru  would  not  be  subject 
to  the  payment  of  the  ten  million  soles  mentioned  in 
the  same  Article. 

On  my  part,  I  set  over  against  this  assertion  the 
literal  text  of  the  Treaty.  In  the  same  paragraph 
as  that  in  which  it  is  determined  that  a  plebiscite  will 
decide  whether  those  provinces  will  be  Chilean  or 
will  continue  to  be  Peruvian  may  be  read  what  follows : 
"Whichsoever  of  the  two  countries  to  which  the  prov- 
inces of  Tacna  and  Arica  shall  become  annexed  will 
pay  to  the  other  ten  million  pesos."  This  is  equiv- 
alent to  saying  that  Chile,  in  order  to  acquire  those 
provinces,  or  Peru,  in  order  to  recover  them,  must 
submit  to  a  double  condition:  that  of  a  popular  vote, 
which  shall  give  them  to  her,  and  that  of  paying  ten 
million  pesos.  These  two  conditions,  incorporated, 
as  they  are,  in  the  same  article  of  the  Treaty,  are 
inseparable  and  do  not  admit  of  fictitious  distinctions 
of  priority  or  of  importance.  Both  are  complete  in 
the  unit  of  a  single  thought,  and  in  such  a  manner 
that  it  is  impossible  to  think  of  the  execution  of  the 
Treaty  apart  from  the  fulfillment  of  the  two  conjointly. 

So  therefore,  Mr.  Minister,  the  lack  of  conformity 
in  our  opinions  in  this  respect  is  absolute.  Therefore 
I  think  it  necessary  to  support  mine  by  appeal  to 
writers  that  express  themselves  with  authority  on  sub- 
jects of  international  law.  They  all  hold,  with  Grotius, 
that  "all  the  articles  of  a  single  and  identical  treaty 
are  comprised  in  one  another  in  the  form  of  a  condition, 
as  if  it  should  be  said  formally:  'I  shall  do  this  or  that 
thing,  provided  you  do  this  or  that  on  your  part.'  " 
Calvo,  glossing  this  text  and  that  of  Blunschli  to  whom 
"the  treaty  of  peace  constituted  a  whole/ '  said  "a 
state,  like  any  individual,  does  not  have  a  right  to  re- 
ject or  not  to  observe  one  of  the  provisions  of  a  con- 
tract and  to  receive  the  benefit  of  the  others,  it  could  not 


121 

be  admitted,  either,  that  distinctions  should  be  made 
between*  articles  of  greater  or  less  importance.' ' 
Wheaton  expressed  himself  thus:  "The  violation  of 
any  one  article  of  the  treaty  is  a  violation  of  the 
whole  treaty;  for  all  the  articles  are  depended  on 
each  other,  and  one  is  to  be  deemed  a  condition  of 
the  other." 

It  is  useless  to  multiply  these  quotations,  since  the 
doctrine  of  the  authors  is  uniform  on  this  subject.  All 
the  provisions  of  a  treaty  form  an  indivisible  whole ; 
each  of  them  is  incorporated  in  the  others  and  any  one 
of  them  is  a  condition  of  the  others. 

This  doctrine  of  distinction  that  Your  Excellency 
seeks  to  establish  between  the  clause  of  Article  III 
of  the  Treaty  of  1883,  which  refers  to  the  plebiscite, 
and  that  which  speaks  of  the  payment  of  ten  million 
pesos  is  therefore  improper.  Your  Excellency  says 
of  the  former  that  on  its  execution  depends  exclusively 
the  determination  of  the  definitive  nationality  of  the 
territory  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  and  he  attributes  to 
the  latter  the  accessory  character  of  a  mere  obligation 
of  debt,  while  saying  expressly  that  both  are  different 
obligations,  unrelated  between  themselves.  It  has 
just  been  seen,  however,  that  these  distinctions  are 
unacceptable  in  law.  Applying  to  the  case  in  question 
the  formula  of  Grotius,  the  aforementioned  Article 
III  has  said  to  Chile  and  Peru:  "Whichsoever  of  you 
to  which  the  plebiscite  shall  adjudge  it  will  be  the 
owner  of  the  territory  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  provided 
you  pay  ten  million  pesos  to  the  one  not  favored  by 
the  popular  vote."  At  all  events,  and  without  regard 
to  anything  besides  the  letter  of  the  Treaty  itself,  it 
is  evident  that  what  it  united  can  not  be  separated; 
that  distinctions  do  not  exist  where  the  Treaty  made 
no  distinctions;  and  that  the  fulfillment  of  one  of  its 


122 

precepts  compels  the  strict  and  necessary  fulfillment 
of  the  other. 

However,  even  without  appealing  to  these  argu- 
ments of  authority,  which  are  decisive,  logic  alone 
would  be  sufficient  to  demonstrate  that  the  meaning 
that  Your  Excellency  attaches  to  the  controverted 
part  of  the  Treaty  of  1883  is  unacceptable.  Suppose,  in 
truth,  the  plebiscite  to  have  been  already  effected  with 
a  result  favorable  to  Peru,  and  see  what  would  happen, 
if  the  provisions  of  the  Treaty  were  applied  as  Your 
Excellency  has  desired.  Chile  would  return  to  Peru 
the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  and  Peru  would 
confine  herself  to  receiving  them;  Chile  would  thus 
have  fulfilled  the  obligation  she  contracted,  by  respect- 
ing the  will  of  those  provinces  manifested  in  the  plebi- 
scite; and  Peru  would  leave  postponed  until  better 
times  the  fulfillment  of  hers,  which  would  consist  in 
paying  ten  million  pesos  for  their  redemption.  Peru, 
deeming  the  onerous  clause  of  the  Treaty  to  be  of  a 
secondary  character  and  saying  that  she  would  oc- 
cupy herself  later  with  the  affair  of  the  payment  would 
have  received  all  the  benefit  of  the  plebiscite,  while 
Chile,  after  having  returned  the  territory  she  has  been 
occupying,  would  have  to  wait — in  order  to  obtain  the 
compensation  that  would  be  due  her — until  some  re- 
sult should  be  produced  in  Peru  by  the  salt  monopoly, 
the  financial  negotiations  or  the  endeavors  of  public 
sentiment.  In  a  word,  Chile  would  have  carried  out 
the  Treaty  in  so  far  as  she  is  concerned,  and  Peru 
would  not  have  done  so.  Permit  me  therefore,  Your 
Excellency,  to  say  that  the  absurdity  of  these  two 
effects  completely  discredits  the  understanding  of  the 
Treaty  of  1883  that  would  conduce  directly  to  them. 

In  this  manner  have  been  developed  for  five  months 
the  negotiations  that  the  undersigned  began,  by  the 


123 

instructions  of  his  Government,  in  August  of  last  year, 
without  even  so  much  as  a  momentary  glimpse  of  an 
early  solution.  It  can  hardly  be  understood  why  a 
labor  of  such  length  could  have  been  so  fruitless,  and 
it  would  be  an  enigma,  if  the  twelve  protocols  in  which 
its  authentic  history  has  been  written  did  not  stand 
as  an  indication  of  the  causes  of  this  deplorable  fail- 
ure. They,  indeed,  testify  that,  at  almost  every  stage 
through  which  we  have  painfully  toiled,  there  has 
arisen  some  obstacle  that  delayed  us  and  that  at  times 
compelled  us  to  retrace  our  steps.  This  fact  naturally 
argues  responsibility  on  the  part  of  some  one,  and 
the  moment  has  now  arrived,  doubtless,  for  deter- 
mining it.  Tn  Your  Excellency's  official  communica- 
tion to  which  I  am  replying,  it  is  insinuated  with 
sufficient  clearness  that  the  obstacles  we  have  en- 
countered have  been  raised  by  Chile,  and  it  is  affirmed 
that  nothing  has  been  more  constant  than  the  good  will 
of  the  Peruvian  Chancellery  to  remove  them.  It  is 
Your  Excellency  then  who  has  begun  that  determin- 
ation of  responsibility  that  the  undersigned  also  deems 
necessary  and  intends  to  undertake  on  his  part. 

A  superficial  examination  of  the  futile  negotiation 
with  which  I  am  occupying  myself  will  show  that  it 
has  been  hindered  by  numerous  difficulties  of  detail; 
but,  looking  well  beneath  the  surface,  it  may  be  at 
once  discovered  that  all  of  them  spring  from  a  single 
great  difficulty,  not  yet  indicated,  which  ought  to  be 
pointed  out.  It  is  a  fact — and  I  note  it  without  quali- 
fying it — that  Peru,  in  embarking  on  the  discussion 
of  the  protocol  complementary  to  the  Treaty  of  1883, 
was  not  prepared  to  fulfill  one  of  the  obligations  that 
this  Treaty  imposed  on  her ;  that  of  the  eventual  .pay- 
ment of  ten  million  pesos  for  the  ransom  of  Tacna  and 
Arica.     In   twelve  vears.  nothing  had  been  done  to 


124 

prevent  this  negotiation  from  taking  her  by  surprise, 
and  exactly  there  is  to  be  found  the  chief  and  only 
cause  of  the  lack  of  result.  Indeed,  if  Peru  had  pre- 
pared in  time  for  the  acknowledged  needs  of  her  pres- 
ent situation,  which  of  those  obstacles  could  not  easily 
have  been  overcome  1  Not  one  of  them ;  and  probably 
they  would  not  even  have  appeared.  Periods!  They 
would  not  have  been  necessary.  Guaranties?  She 
could  have  furnished  them  very  easily.  If  these  two 
questions  on  which  the  negotiation  has  been  deplor- 
ably stranded  had  been  thus  eliminated,  it  would  have 
been  possible  to  proceed  to  organize  the  plebiscite, 
and  the  problem  would  perhaps  have  been  solved  at 
this  moment. 

Instead  of  this,  much  time  has  regrettably  been 
wasted  and  lost  in  discussions  of  slight  utility.  The 
discussions  as  to  the  periods  lasted  two  months ;  that 
as  to  guaranties,  another  two  months;  and  here  I 
call  Your  Excellency's  attention  to  a  revealing  cir- 
cumstance: the  question  of  periods  terminated  at 
the  very  moment  in  which  Minister  Porras  believed 
that  Peru  now  had  resources  with  which  to  pay  op- 
portunely the  ten  million  pesos.  He  said,  in  the  con- 
ference of  October  8,  that  Peru  was  completely  assured 
of  paying  the  indemnity  and  that  she  declined  to  re- 
quest any  period.  Hence  the  demand  of  periods  neces- 
sarily originated  in  the  neglect  of  which  Peru  was 
guilty  when  she  failed  to  remember  that  in  the  Treaty 
of  1883  existed  a  clause  that  obligated  her  to  pay  an 
indemnity.  However,  the  securities  to  which  Minister 
Porras  alluded  in  October  must  have  disappeared  very 
soon,  because  there  at  once  arose  the  question  of  the 
periods,  masked  by  the  question  of  the  guaranties. 
"When  the  latter  were  requested  by  the  undersigned, 
Your  Excellency's  Government,  denying  in  principle 


125 

its  obligation  to  furnish  them,  offered  under  the  name 
of  such  of  those  that  I  have  examined  in  the  body  of 
this  communication  and  that  pertained,  all  of  them,  to 
the  purpose  of  obtaining  periods  for  the  effecting  of 
the  payment,  long  in  one  case,  and  indefinite  in  the 
other.  As  a  guaranty,  Sehor  Porras  said,  let  Chile 
retain  the  territory  of  Tacna  and  Arica  until  the  in- 
demnity shall  have  been  paid  her.  Your  Excellency 
made  an  identical  proposal,  adding  to  it  a  promise 
to  pay  annually  an  instalment  of  a  million  soles.  These 
proposals,  as  I  have  already  shown,  did  not  furnish 
the  requested  security;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  they 
granted  to  Peru  the  periods  that  she  had  expressly 
renounced.  Peru,  which  would  pay  when  she  could, 
if  she  accepted  what  was  proposed  by  Senor  Porras, 
would  cancel  her  obligation  in  no  less  than  ten  years, 
according  to  what  Your  Excellency  has  offered.  All 
the  routes  led  to  the  same  point,  and  by  all  of  them 
one  would  arrive  at  the  annulment  of  the  only  agree- 
ment, painfully  obtained:  that  the  payment  of  the 
indemnity  would  be  effected  by  Peru  three  months 
after  the  decision  of  the  plebiscite  should  be  promul- 
gated. 

A  single  proposal  departed  from  this  path :  that  of 
Senor  Porras,  who  suggested  that  it  would  be  ex- 
pedient for  Chile  and  Peru  to  renounce  the  indemnity. 
However  firm  in  the  mind  of  Your  Excellency's 
Government  may  have  been  the  conviction  that  the 
plebiscite  would  unquestionably  favor  Peru,  that  pro- 
posal had  no  other  object  than  to  relieve  her  of  the 
burden  that  was  imposed  on  her  by  the  Treaty  of 
1883.  I  ought  to  recognize,  nevertheless,  that  Chile 
in  view  of  the  expectations  that  she  cherishes,  based 
on  the  plebiscite,  wTould  have,  been  favored  by  accept- 
ing it;  but  my  Government  did  not  believe  that  it 


126 

could  accept  it,  because  this  would  have  meant  the 
postponement  of  the  holding  of  the  plebiscite;  the 
derogation,  in  the  part  that  refers  to  it,  of  the  Treaty 
of  1883;  and  the  replacement  of  it  by  another  treaty 
of  an  equal  nature.  There  was  nothing,  in  the  mean- 
while, that  counseled  or  justified  the  adoption  of  such 
a  procedure.  Inasmuch  as  one  treaty  existed,  the 
simplest  and  most  correct  solution  would  have  been 
to  fulfill  it,  it  also  appearing  reasonable  that  this 
would  be  much  easier  than  to  negotiate  and  adopt 
another  one. 

I  have  therefore  demonstrated,  by  the  argument 
here  concluded,  that  the  Government  of  Chile  has 
really  desired  to  go  to  the  plebiscite  ordained  by  Ar- 
ticle III  of  the  Treaty  of  1883  in  search  of  the  legal 
solution  of  the  problem  of  Tacna  and  Arica.  The 
steps  it  took  for  this  purpose  at  a  moment  that  it 
deemed  exceptionally  propitious,  a  short  time  after 
a  crisis  had  been  caused  in  this  capital  by  a  situation 
that  profoundly  disturbed  the  internal  life  of  Peru, 
have  not  borne,  nevertheless,  any  fruit,  and  they  have 
been  developed  laboriously  for  six  months  amid  numer- 
ous obstacles.  To  all  the  solicitations — reasonable 
and  in  strict  conformity  with  law — which  the  under- 
signed has  formulated,  Your  Excellency's  Govern- 
ment opposed  negatives  irreconcilable  with  the  ful- 
fillment of  the  obligations  expressly  recognized  and 
accepted  by  Peru  in  the  Treaty  of  1883.  There  can 
be  but  one  explanation  of  this  opposition.  Peru,  dur- 
ing twelve  years  that  have  passed  since  the  conclusion 
of  the  Peace  of  Ancon,  has  done  nothing  to  prevent 
the  expiration  of  the  period  of  the  Treaty  from  over- 
taking her  unprepared  with  the  means  of  fulfilling  it. 
There  were  not  issued,  during  that  long  period,  laws 
and  resources  for  the  redemption  of  the  provinces  that 


127 

the  plebiscite  might  return  to  her,  nor  had  she  ap- 
pealed to  the  national  sentiment  for  the  aid  of  its 
efforts.  Only  now,  and  still  three  months  after  the 
opening  of  the  negotiation  of  the  plebiscite  with  her 
Chancellery,  has  she  begun  to  prepare  the  means  that 
she  needed  to  enable  her  to  participate  in  it  without 
embarrassment.  Owing  to  the  fact  that  she  had  not 
accumulated  them  in  time,  she  was  surprised  at  the 
last  hour  in  a  struggle  with  uncertainties  that  have 
compelled  her  to  meet  the  solicitations  of  Chile  with 
unjustifiable  refusals.  It  being  thus  proven  that  the 
difficulties  that  have  hindered  and  frustrated  the  nego- 
tiation of  the  plebiscite  have  originated  with  Peru,  I 
reply  to  the  last  part  of  Your  Excellency's  note,  in 
which  you  speak  of  obstacles  that  ought  to  be  over- 
come, while  expressing  confidence  that  your  Govern- 
ment will  remove  them.  Otherwise,  if  the  Treaty  of 
1883  be  not  fulfilled  opportunely  and  in  all  its  parts, 
the  responsibility  will  not  be  Chile's;  and  my  Govern - 
ment — which  desires  to  appear  honorably  before  the 
plebiscite  and  has  made  great  efforts  to  be  able  to 
do  so — attributes  it  wholly  to  Your  Excellency's 
Government. 

I  take  this  new  opportunity  to  reiterate .  to  Your 
Excellency  the  protests  of  my  most  distinguished  con- 
sideration. 

M.  R.  Lira. 
To  His  Excellency, 

Senor  Doctor  Don  Eicardo  Ortiz  de.  Zevallos, 
Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations.     - 


128 

Proceedings  of  the  Conference  Held  Between  Minister 
of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Peru  and  Minister  of  Chile 
in  Peru. 

[Translation.] 

[Lima,  August  14, 1897.} 

Meeting  in  the  Department  of  Foreign  Relations  this 
date,  the  Minister  of  that  branch  of  the  Government, 
Dr.  Enrique  de  la  Riva-Aguero,  and  the  Envoy  Extra- 
ordinary and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Chile,  Dr. 
Vicente  Santa-Cruz,  the  former  explained:  that  he 
had  taken  the  liberty  to  invite  the  Minister  of  Chile 
to  this  conference  for  the  purpose  of  continuing  the 
interrupted  negotiation  of  the  matter  of  Tacna  and 
Arica,  which  his  Government  desires  to  carry  to  a 
conclusion,  in  the  shortest  time  possible ;  that  not  only 
did  their  proper  obligations  demand  it,  but  also  the 
necessity  under  which  they  found  themselves,  for, 
heeding  such  a  unanimous  and  legitimate  national 
aspiration;  that,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  unquestion- 
able that  both  Peru  and  Chile  are  agreed  that  the 
situation  of  uncertainty  which  the  force  of  that  affair 
maintains,  should  disappear,  in  order  to  make  their 
relations*  truly  stable  and  enable  them  to  busy  them- 
selves with  their  common  and  permanent  interests. 
The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  added  that  he 
wished  to  state  that  there  had  been  two  reasons  for 
which  his  Government,  without  ever  neglecting  the 
question  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  about  which  steps  had 
been  taken  here  as  well  as  in  Santiago,  has  not,  how^- 
ever,  urged  the  matter  on  Chile  during  the  past  year, 
for  the  purpose  of  securing  an  immediate  solution: 
first,  because  he  deemed  it  proper  on  his  part  not  to 
do  it  when  the  new  administration  of  Sr.  Errazuriz 
had  just  been  inaugurated,  which  was  then  engaged 


129 

n  the  task  of  internal  organization;  and  second,  be- 
cause the  subsequent  retirement  of  Sr.  Lira  left  the 
Legation  of  Chile,  for  four  months,  without  a  repres- 
entative who  could  treat  with  such  a  delicate  subject; 
but  that,  first  one  and  then  the  other  reason  having 
disappeared,  he  hoped  that  Sr.  Santa  Cruz,  being 
satisfied  for  the  reasons  already  given,  which  could 
advise  both  countries  toward  an  immediate  solution, 
would  be  disposed  to  secure  it  in  the  frank  and  cordial 
discussion  to  which  he  had  had  the  honor  to  invite 
him. 

The  Minister  of  Chile  replied  that  he*  accepted  this 
invitation  with  pleasure,  as  his  Government,  enter- 
taining the  same  high  designs  shown  by  the  Minister 
of  Foreign  Eelations,  desires,  as  well  as  Peru,  to  de- 
finitely solve  the  question  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  forthwith  sug- 
gested that  he  believed  it  necessary  to  protocolize  all 
the  conferences  on  this  subject,  beginning  with  the 
present  one,  it  being  understood  that  in  order  that 
the  discussion  should  not  be  difficult  and  embarrassing, 
only  the  essential  parts  would  be  set  forth,  leaving 
out  in  good  faith,  for  both  parties,  the  opinions  which 
are  given  or  decisions  which  are  declared,  of  a  con- 
fidential nature;  a  suggestion  which  was  accepted  by 
the  Minister  of  Chile. 

After  lengthy  general  consideration,  carried  on  by 
both  Plenipotentiaries,  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Re- 
lations declared  that  his  Government  had  no  proposal 
to  make  to  Chile  for  the  direct  settlement  of  the  ques- 
tion of  Tacna  and  Arica,  in  regard  to  which  it  only 
asked  the  faithful  and  honest  fulfillment  of  the  Treaty 
of  1883 ;  but  that,  as  the  Government  of  Chile  had  on 
various  occasions  intimated  the  desire  to  reach  a  di- 
rect solution,  it  would  accept,  with  pleasure,  the  dis- 


130 

cussion  of  any  proposition  in  this  respect  which  might 
be  made  to  it,  and  which  should  always  be  based  on 
the  complete  restitution  of  the  said  provinces  to  Peru. 

The  Minister  of  Chile  replied  that  his  instructions 
do  not  authorize  him  to  make  any  proposal  for  a 
direct  settlement,  doubtless  because  Peru  did  not  ac- 
cept those  which  were  previously  made,  and  that  he 
is  only  empowered  to  arrange  the  form  and  conditions 
of  the  plebiscite,  which,  nevertheless,  did  not  prevent 
him  from  discussing,  either  now  or  later,  the  direct 
combinations  that  might  be  proposed  to  him,  or  per- 
haps make  proposals  in  the  course  of  the  debate,  if 
his  Government,  having  been  given  the  antecedents, 
should  strike  upon  any  which  would  be  acceptable. 

Consequently  it  was  agreed,  beginning  with  the  next 
conference,  to  begin  full  discussion  of  the  protocol 
regulating  the  plebiscite,  the  naming  of  the  day  upon 
which  it  shall  take  place  having  been  opportunely 
made  by  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations. 

Before  retiring,  the  Minister  from  Chile  declared 
that  he  wished  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Minister 
of  Foreign  Relations  to  the  objection  drawn  up  by 
his  Government  in  the  Valdes  Carrera  affair. 

By  reason  of  this,  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Re- 
lations made  a  brief  explanation  of  said  affair;  he 
indicated  that  the  reasons  which  had  prevented  him 
from  giving  a  timely  reply  to  Sr.  Lira 's  last  note 
are  those  set  forth  in  his  communication  of  July  9th 
to  Sr.  Bravo  Valdivieso ;  but  that  he  had  no  objection 
to  dealing  with  it  separately  with  His  Excellency  Sr. 
Santa  Cruz,  which  was  done  in  a  special  conference 
which  they  held  immediately. 

E.    DE    LA    RlVA    AGUERO. 

V.  Santa  Cruz. 
Lima,  August  14,  1897. 


131 

Proceedings  of  the  Conferences  Held  in  February 
and  March,  1898,  Between  Minister  Plenipoten- 
tiary of  Peru  on  Special  Mission  and  Minister 
of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 

[Translation.] 

{April  9,  1898.] 
I. 

Met,  in  the  hall  of  the  Ministry  of  Foreign  Re- 
lations  of  Chile,  the  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Peru, 
on  a  special  mission  Don  Guillermo  E.  Billinghurst, 
and  the  Minister  of  the  Department,  Don  Raimundo 
Silva  Cruz,  the  former  stated  that  his  Government, 
desiring  to  reach,  as  soon  as  possible,  a  definition  of 
the  situation  of  the  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  in 
conformity  with  the  Treaty  of  Peace  of  October  20, 
1883,  and  thus  to  strengthen  the  relations  of  friend- 
ship between  the  two  countries,  had  seen  fit  to  ac- 
credit him  on  a  special  mission  to  the  Government  of 
this  Republic. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  said  that  the 
Government  of  Chile  could  do  no  less  than  congratu- 
late itself  that  this  important  mission  had  been  in- 
trusted by  the  Government  of  Peru  to  a  person  so 
distinguished  and  so  highly  placed  in  that  Republic, 
and,  at  the  same  time,  especially  connected  with 
Chilean  society,  which,  without  doubt,  must  facilitate  a 
negotiation  that  Chile  has  always  longed  to  see  ter- 
minated in  a  form  satisfactory  to  both  countries  and 
in  that  absolute  correctness  which  is  the  pledge  of 
friendship  and  expediency  between  nations  united  by 
bonds  of  origin  and  common  mercantile  and  industrial 
interests.  The  Minister  added  that,  although  the 
Treaty  of  1883  established  the  plebiscitary  procedure 
for  the  settlement  of  the  question  under  discussion, 


132 

this  would  not  prevent  the  two  Governments  from 
agreeing  on  a  direct  and  more  rapid  manner;  and, 
with  that  in  view,  he  at  once  proposed  the  following 
idea:  that  Peru  should  definitively  cede  to  Chile 
dominion  over  the  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  and 
that  Chile,  on  her  part,  would  not  limit  herself  to 
paying  the  indemnity  stipulated  in  the  Treaty  in  force, 
But  that  she  would  be  disposed  to  go  still  further. 

The  Minister  of  Peru  declared  that  his  Government 
had  already  declined,  on  former  occasions,  to  consent  to 
the  delivery,  by  direct  arrangement,  of  the  territories 
of  Tacna  and  Arica,  and  that  she  would  always  stand 
by  that  decision,  because  the  national  sentiment 
powerful  and  inflexible  in  this  respect,  would  not  yield 
to  offers,  however  advantageous  they  might  be.  He 
added  that  although  Peru  had  entered  into  a  treaty — 
as  a  consequence  of  the  outcome  of  the  war  of  1879, 
and  in  order  to  rid  herself  of  the  foreign  occupation 
that  even  threatened  her  sovereignty — to  cede  Ta- 
rapaca  perpetually  and  unconditionally,  today — when 
she  is  in  the  full  exercise  of  her  sovereign  rights, 
with  a  Government  that  has  been  able  to  win  respect 
at  home  and  abroad,  and  when  she  possesses  the  re- 
sources necessary  to  meet  the  obligations  that  the 
ransom  of  the  provinces  involves,  far  from  being  able 
to  consent  to  the  dismemberment  of  the  national  ter- 
ritory, thus  trampling  on  the  most  sacred  rights  of 
her  fundamental  charter — the  reincorporation  of  those 
territories,  an  aspiration  that  touches  the  souls  of  the 
Peruvian  people,  has  come  to  constitute  a  national  ob- 
jective, to  which  is  bound  the  very  existence  of  Peru 
as  a  sovereign  nation.  Apart  from  these  consider- 
ations, which  are  in  the  consciousness  of  each  and 
all  of  the  Peruvians,  these  are  those  of  a  less  elevated 
character,  but  no  less  fundamental,  that  make  this 


133 

proposal  unacceptable  and  that  refer  to  the  economic 
life  of  the  valuable  departments  of  southern  Peru. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  remarked  that 
he  would  not  enter  into  an  analysis  of  the  reality  and 
intensity  of  patriotic  feeling,  always  respectable  in 
itself,  to  which  the  Minister  of  Peru  had  just  alluded 
and  which  he  alleges  as  the  most  unsurmountable  ob- 
stacle to  the  acceptance  of  the  direct  arrangement; 
but  a  fact  of  greater  significance  and  importance  ought 
not  to  be  overlooked.  The  territories  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  have  been,  since  1883,  subject  to  a  special 
situation  created  by  the  Treaty  of  Peace  and  Friend- 
ship, which  left  them  without  definite  nationality,  or 
even  with  a  nationality  more  closely  related  to  that 
of  Chile,  to  whose  possession  and  laws  it  subjected 
them.  The  possession  that  might  be  acquired  by  one 
of  the  countries  could  not  therefore  be  considered  by 
the  other  a  dismemberment  of  territory,  whether  by 
direct  arrangement  or  by  a  plebiscite.  It  would  merely 
signify  the  determination  of  a  dominion  today  in- 
definite. 

As  to  reasons  of  expediency,  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Relations  holds  that  they  are  all,  in  so  far  as  Peru 
is  concerned,  on  the  side  of  a  direct  arrangement, 
such  as  the  one  that  he  proposes  to  her,  if  account 
be  taken  of  the  sacrifices  of  every  kind  that  would 
be  imposed  upon  her  in  order  to  bestow  on  those 
territories  a  greater  prosperity  and  development  in 
a  manner  that  would  enable  them  to  make  an  adequate 
contribution  to  the  national  life. 

The  Minister  of  Peru  explained  that  there  was  no 
exaggeration  whatsoever  in  the  remarks  to  which  he 
had  already  given  utterance;  that,  without  entering 
upon  a  full  discussion,  he  believed  it  proper,  never- 
theless, to  declare  that  he  did  not  accept  the  theory 


134 

of  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  as  to  the  present 
condition  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  for  the  occupation  main- 
tained by  Chile  signified  to  Peru  no  more  than  a 
suspension  of  the  exercise  of  her  sovereignty  over 
those  provinces,  and  in  nowise  the  abandonment  or 
renouncement  of  sovereignty  itself;  but,  disregard- 
ing this,  and  above  every  other  demonstration,  the 
fact  was  that,  in  his  judgment,  Peruvian  sentiment  had 
not  ceased  for  a  single  instant  to  regard  the  two  prov- 
inces alluded  to  as  an  integral  part  of  her  territory; 
and  that,  as  to  reasons  of  expediency,  it  would  be 
sufficient  to  note  that  the  construction  of  a  railway 
from  Arica  to  another  point  of  that  coast  toward  the 
productive  centers  of  Bolivia,  as  was  foreseen  by  the 
treaties  pending  and  those  already  public,  of  Chile 
with  that  nation,  would  introduce  serious  economic 
disturbances  in  the  departments  of  Puno  and  Are- 
quipa,  in  the  realm  of  railway  traffic  and  the  products 
of  the  custom-house  of  Mollendo,  to  which  Peru  can 
not  contribute  by  a  direct  labor  of  her  own;  and  he 
ended  by  setting  forth  that  the  only  possible  solution 
consisted  in  faithfully  fulfilling  the  Treaty  of  October 
20,  1883,  and,  convinced  of  which,  he  invited  the  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Relations  to  proceed  to  discuss  the 
bases  of  the  plebiscite. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  then  proposed 
that,  inasmuch  as  it  was  impossible  for  them  to  reach 
an  understanding  as  to  the  basis  of  a  direct  arrange- 
ment relative  to  the  whole  of  the  territories,  it  might 
refer  to  at  least  a  part.  So,  by  dividing  them  into  two 
zones,  one  from  Arica  southward,  and  the  other  from 
Arica  northward,  Peru  could  annex  the  latter,  and 
Chile,  the  former,  without  any  indemnity  on  one  side 
or  the  other,  that  is,  the  indemnity  would  be  re- 
ciprocally liquidated. 


135 

The  Minister  of  Peru  maintained  that  the  same 
reasons  that  militate  against  his  country's  being  able 
to  accept  the  cession,  without  a  plebiscite,  of  the  whole, 
would  obtain,  with  the  same  force,  in  respect  of  a 
part;  so  that  he  would  only  have  to  repeat  them  in 
order  to  arrive  at  the  same  conclusion,  strengthened 
in  this  case,  by  the  consideration  that  the  towns  situ- 
ated north  of  Arica  would  be  in  a  completely  anom- 
alous position  and  would  be  destined  to  languish 
and  die. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  observed  that 
in  spite  of  previous  negotiations,  as  appears  from 
antecedents  that  exist  in  the  archives  of  the  Ministry, 
the  Government  of  Peru  was  disposed  to  enter  into 
direct  arrangements  as  to  one  part  of  those  terri- 
tories, it  proposing  that  the  region  from  Chero  north- 
ward, as  far  as  Sama,  should  be  annexed  to  Peru, 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  from  Vitor  southward, 
as  far  as  Camarones,  should  be  annexed  to  Chile, 
the  plebiscitary  decision  being  thus  limited  to  the 
intermediate  zone  and  the  amount  of  the  indemnity 
being  also  reduced  to  four  million  pesos.  In  view  of 
this,  he  now  took  occasion  to  make  it  clear  that  the 
Government  of  Chile  is  disposed  to  accept,  at  once, 
this  basis,  in  its  desire  to  seek  a  method  that  would 
better  conciliate  the  interests  of  the  two  countries. 

The  Minister  of  Peru  said  that  public  opinion  in  his 
country  had  never  accepted  the  idea  of  the  arrange- 
ment to  which  he  had  alluded  and  that  today,  when 
the  treaties  concluded  between  Chile  and  Bolivia  as 
to  the  particular  are  known,  it  was  rejected  in  an 
express  and  definitive  manner,  for  reasons  of  a 
different  nature  that  touch  the  delicate  fibers  of  the 
national  dignity,  because  of  which  it  might  be  asserted 
that  there  is  not  in  Peru  a  single  ruler  that  would 


136 

dare  to  cede,  apart  from  the  case  contemplated  in  the 
Treaty  of  1883,  so  much  as  an  inch  of  the  territories 
of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  declared  that  al- 
though, according  to  the  words  to  which  he  had  just 
listened,  he  understood  that  it  was  also  impossible  to 
arrive  at  an  accord  as  to  the  latter  basis,  he  could 
do  no  less  than  lament  that  the  mind  of  Peru  should 
be  influenced  in  any  way  and  to  such  a  considerable 
degree  by  the  circumstance  that  a  sister  country  might 
be  able  to  reap  a  benefit  thereby,  all  the  more  so 
that  in  such  a  case  it  would  not  be  Peru  that  would 
be  ceding  territories  to  Bolivia,  but  Chile  that  would 
be  disposing  freely  of  what  she  might  legitimately 
acquire.  This  reveals,  on  the  other  hand,  he  added, 
that  the  expediency  or  inexpediency  of  the  dismember- 
ment of  the  territory  is  not  the  strongest  of  the 
reasons.  He  ended  by  asking  the  Minister  of  Peru 
to  think  over  this  proposal  for  some  days. 

The  Minister  of  Peru  replied  that  the  ideas  that 
he  had  expressed,  which  emanated  from  an  intense 
conviction  and  a  broad  study  of  this  question  under 
its  distinct  phases,  were  incapable  of  modification; 
but  that,  out  of  deference  to  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Eelations,  he  did  not  hesitate  to  agree  to  discuss  this 
point  again. 

After  the  conferences  had  been  suspended  for  some 
days,  the  Minister  of  Peru  said  in  the  next  that  the 
proposal  made  by  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations, 
which  had  remained  pending,  could  not  be  accepted, 
because,  in  addition  to  reasons  of  patriotic  sentiment, 
to  those  that  counsel  retention  for  the  maintenance 
of  the  railways  of  southern  Peru  and  to  those  that 
relate  to  the  port  of  Mollendo,  already  set  forth,  there 
remains  the  very  important  reason  that,  in  case  of 


137 

the  establishment  of  a  new  nationality  north  of  the 
Camarones  ravine,  Peru  would  be  left  without  a 
natural  frontier ;  and,  if  to  this  be  added  the  establish- 
ment there  of  new  towns  and  railway  traffic,  that 
her  condition  would  be  wholly  anomalous,  since  she 
would  lack  the  means  that  would  enable  her  to  watch 
over  her  new  frontier  in  an  effective  manner.  He 
concluded  by  again  expressing  a  desire  to  seek  a  sol- 
ution in  a  plebiscite,  as  was  prescribed  by  the  Treaty 
of  October  20,  1883. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  said  that  the 
strongest  proof  that  the  Government  of  Chile  was 
animated  by  the  best  designs  in  respect  of  this  question 
were  the  efforts  that  it  had  made  to  solve  it,  in  a  man- 
ner that  would  most  thoroughly  and  rapidly  harmon- 
ize the  interests — the  compromise  or  direct  arrange- 
ment— but  that,  if  it  should  be  impossible,  the  Govern- 
ment would  be  to-day,  as  it  had  always  been,  ready 
to  study  the  most  serious  forms  and  bases — both 
guaranteed  and  honorable — for  the  plebiscite  provided 
in  the  Treaty  of  1883,  which  it  had  tried  at  every 
moment,  to  carry  into  effect,  as  is  shown  by  the  fact 
that  its  representatives  in  Peru  have  never  lacked 
instructions  to  this  effect. 

n. 

Proceeding  to  treat  of  the  form  in  which  the  plebi- 
scite ought  to  be  effected,  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Relations  proposed  the  idea  that,  for  the  purpose  of 
this  act,  the  territories  be  divided  into  three  zones 
from  north  to  south ;  one  from  Sama  to  Chero,  another 
from  Chero  to  Vitor,  and  a  third  from  Vitor  to  Cama- 
rones, because  thus  would  be  better  consulted  the 
will  and  interests  of  each  of  those  sections,  according 
to  their  development,  interests  and  sentiments,  and 


138 

because,  otherwise,  they  would  be  forced  to  submit 
to  a  general  decision  that  might  not  be  the  best  suited 
to  their  peculiar  character. 

The  Minister  of  Peru  remarked  that  among  the 
parts  indicated  of  those  territories  there  is  no  differ- 
ence whatsoever  in  respect  of  their  economic  life  and 
their  tendencies  and  desires,  and  that  it  would  be  im- 
possible for  him  to  accept  the  idea,  he  preferring  to 
adhere  to  the  provisions  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  which 
mentions  only  a  plebiscite  for  all  the  territories. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations,  insisting  on  the 
idea  of  dividing  the  territories  for  the  purpose  of  the 
plebiscite,  proposed  that  the  division  be  made  in  at 
least  two  parts,  each  of  which  would  correspond,  re- 
spectively, to  the  former  provinces,  at  present  depart- 
ments of  Tacna  and  Arica.  It  is  clear,  he  added, 
that  this  division,  made  in  ancient  times  by  Peru  and 
retained  by  Chile,  is  founded  on  the  peculiar  conditions 
of  each  of  those  two  regions. 

The  Minister  of  Peru  insisted,  on  his  part,  that 
it  was  impossible  for  his  Government  to  accept  the 
division  of  the  territory,  considered  by  the  Treaty 
of  Peace  as  one  only,  as  a  unit,  for  the  purposes  of 
the  plebiscite ;  and,  regretting  that  he  could  not  accede 
to  the  invitation  offered  him  by  the  Minister  of 
Foreign  Relations,  of  arriving  at  an  especial  agree- 
ment in  this  respect,  he  repeated  that  he  would  prefer 
to  adhere  to  the  terms  of  the  aforementioned  Treaty. 

III. 

Proceeding  to  the  determination  of  the  essential 
bases  of  the  plebiscite,  it  was  agreed  to  consider  it 
in  the  following  order:  first,  those  who  have  a  right 
to  vote;  second,  whether  the  vote  ought  to  be  public 
or  secret;  third,  who  ought  to  preside  over  the  oper- 


139 

ations  of  the  act  and  settle  the  difficulties  that  might 
arise  in  it;  fourth,  the  terms  and  periods  in  which 
the  indemnity  that  will  he  due  hy  the  country  that 
shall  become  the  owner  of  the  territory  will  have  to 
be  paid  to  the  other,  according  to  the  Treaty  of  1883 ; 
and,  fifth,  what  securities  shall  be  stipulated  as  to 
this  payment. 

It  was  agreed,  at  the  same  time,  to  postpone  until 
later  the  study  of  the  regulations  that  would  cover 
the  practical  application  of  these  essential  bases. 

The  study  of  the  first  point  was  taken  up,  it  being 
maintained  by  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  that 
all  the  inhabitants  of  the  territory  that  should  meet 
certain  requirements  of  age,  residence,  civil  state,  et 
cetera,  should  be  regarded  as  qualified  to  take  part  in 
the  vote;  and,  by  the  Minister  of  Peru,  that  only  Peru- 
vians, born  in  the  territory  or  that  reside  in  it  ought 
to  be  permitted  to  vote,  provided  they  possess  certain 
personal  qualifications.  Although,  for  this  purpose, 
some  of  those  personal  requirements  were  indicated, 
on  the  part  of  one  and  of  the  other,  the  deliberation 
was  confined  in  the  main  to  the  point  as  to  whether 
the  inhabitants  that  should  fulfill  the  conditions  of  time, 
of  residence  and  others,  or  only  native  persons  of  the 
territory  and  Peruvians,  although  not  born  but  re- 
sident in  it,  might  take  part  in  the  vote,  the  determi- 
nation of  the  other  requirements  being  postponed  until 
later. 

After  a  series  of  conferences  in  which,  on  the  part 
of  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  and  on  the  part 
of  the  Minister  of  Peru,  respectively,  the  necessary 
considerations  and  bases  were  adduced,  without  its 
being  possible  to  arrive  at  an  accord,  it  was  agreed 
to  submit  the  point  to  the  arbitral  decision  of  the 
sovereign  of  a  friendly  power. 


140 

Next  was  taken  up  the  consideration  of  the  require- 
ments that  might  be  exacted  of  voters,  and  as  an 
understanding  was  not  reached  regarding  them,  either, 
after  a  prolonged  deliberation,  it  was  also  agreed  to 
submit  them  to  the  same  arbitrament. 

The  same  careful  study  was  devoted  to  the  point 
as  to  whether  the  vote  should  be  public  or  secret, 
without  an  agreement  being  reached.  It  was  decided 
to  submit  it  also  to  an  arbitral  solution. 

In  view  of  the  essentially  scientific  and  juridical 
nature  of  the  subjects  comprised  in  the  foregoing 
points,  it  was  deemed  expedient  by  common  consent, 
not  to  reproduce  in  this  memorandum  the  arguments 
adduced  on  the  one  side  or  the  other,  inasmuch  as  it 
would  have  been  impossible  to  do  so  in  an  ample  and 
complete  manner,  and  as  it  would  be  necessary  that 
they  be  set  forth  and  developed  before  the  arbiter. 
As  to  the  designation  of  the  arbiter,  it  was  agreed 
that  it  should  be  the  Government  of  Her  Majesty  the 
Queen  Eegent  of  Spain,  of  whom  would  be  solicited 
opportunely  the  acceptance  of  the  office  through  the 
medium  of  the  plenipotentiaries  that  the  two  coun- 
tries might  accredit  to  it.  Through  the  medium  of 
these  same  plenipotentiaries,  the  two  Governments 
would  solicit  of  the  arbiter  an  early  expression  of  her 
decision. 

After  the  other  points  were  analyzed,  and  the  reg- 
ulations of  the  plebiscite  acts  were  studied,  there 
was  formulated,  by  common  consent,  the  following 
plan  of  a  convention,  of  which  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Eelations  took  one  copy  and  the  Minister  of  Peru, 
another,  in  order  that,  in  the  next  conference,  if  no 
point  should  merit  reconsideration,  to  proceed  to  sign 
it  after  the  presentation  and  exchange  of  the  respec- 
tive powers : 


141 

The  Governments  of  the  Eepublic  of  Chile  and  the 
Eepublic  of  Peru,  desiring  to  reach  a  definitive  set- 
tlement, in  respect  of  the  dominion  and  sovereignty 
of  the  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  in  conformity 
with  the  Treaty  of 'Peace  of  October  20,  1883,  and  to 
strengthen  the  relations  of  friendship  between  the  two 
peoples  by  the  elimination  of  a  question  that  has  vexed 
them  for  a  long  time,  after  the  examination  and  cer- 
tification of  their  respective  powers  and  after  finding 
them  to  be  sufficient,  adopted  the  following  convention, 
designed  to  carry  into  effect  Article  III  of  the  afore- 
mentioned Treaty  of  October  20,  1883 : 

Article  I. 

To  the  decision  of  the  Government  of  her  Majesty 
the  Queen  Regent  of  Spain,  whom  the  high  contracting 
parties  designate  in  the  capacity  of  arbiter,  the  follow- 
ing points  are  submitted: 

1.  Who  has  a  right  to  take  part  in  the  plebiscitary 
vote  designed  to  determine  the  definitive  dominion  and 
sovereignty  of  the  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica; 
and  what  are  the  requisites  of  nationality,  sex,  age, 
civil  state,  residence,  or  any  other  that  must  be  pos- 
sessed by  the  voters; 

2.  Whether  the  plebiscitary  vote  shall  be  public  or 
secret. 

Article  II. 

A  directive  board,  composed  of  one  representative 
of  the  Government  of  Chile,  one  representative  of  the 
Government  of  Peru  and  a  third  party  designated  by 
the  Government  of  Spain,  will  preside  over  the  acts 
and  take  the  necessary  steps  to  carry  the  plebiscite 
into  effect.  The  third  party  designated  will  serve 
in  the  capacity  of  chairman  of  the  board. 

This  board  will  have  authority: 

1.  To  make  up  and  publish  a  general  register  of 
all  those  that  may  have  a  right  to  vote? 

2.  To  settle  all  difficulties,  doubts  and  questions  that 
may  arise  in  respect  of  the  listing,  voting  and  other 
acts  of  the  plebiscite; 


142 

3.  To  make  a  general  scrutiny  of  the  votes,  based 
on  the  partial  results  obtained  at  each  of  the  voting- 
tables; 

4.  To  announce  the  general  result  of  the  vote,  com- 
municating it  immediately  to  the  Governments  of 
Spain,  Chile  and  Peru; 

5.  To  issue  all  orders  and  instructions  necessary  to 
the  better  accomplishment  of  the  plebiscitary  acts  de- 
fined by  the  present  Convention. 

All  the  decisions  of  this  board  will  be  determined 
by  a  majority  vote.  In  case  of  a  division,  the  opinion 
of  the  third  party  designated  by  the  Government  of 
Spain  will  prevail. 

Aeticle  III. 

Not  later  than  forty  days  after  the  announcement 
of  the  decision  of  the  arbiter  to  whom  Article  I  refers, 
the  Governments  of  Chile  and  Peru  will  proceed  to  ap- 
point their  representatives.  The  directive  board  will 
establish  quarters  in  the  city  of  Tacna  and  it  will  begin 
to  function  within  a  period  of  ten  days  reckoned  after 
the  third  party,  who  shall  be  designated  by  the  Govern- 
ment  of  Spain,  shall  be  present  in  that  city. 

Aeticle  IV. 

There  will  be  four  registration  committees  or 
boards ;  one  in  Tacna,  one  in  Tarata,  one  in  Arica  and 
the  other  in  Lluta. 

These  committees  will  be  composed  of : 

1.  One  appointee  of  the  Government  of  Chile; 

2.  One  appointee  of  the  Government  of  Peru; 

3.  One  commissary,  appointed  by  the  directive 
board  of  the  plebiscite,  who  will  serve  in  the  capacity 
of  chairman. 

The  aforementioned  committees  will  establish  quar- 
ters, not  later  than  eight  days  after  the  installation 
of  the  directive  board  in  Tacna,  and  they  will  function 
for  forty  consecutive  days,  from  ten  in  the  forenoon 
until  four  in  the  afternoon.  Daily,  when  they  cease 
their  labors,  they  will  place  at  the  bottom  of  the  last 


143 

name  inscribed  a  note  signed  by  all  their  members, 
in  which  shall  be  given  the  number  of  persons  listed 
during  the  day.  The  pages  of  the  register  in  which 
the  inscriptions  shall  be  made  will  also*  be  signed  by 
all  the  members  of  the  committees. 

The  resolutions  of  the  inspecting  committees  will 
be  adopted  by  a  majority  vote,  and  their  resolutions 
will  be  appealable  to  the  directive  board. 

The  committees  will  inscribe  in  the  registers  all  per- 
sons that  shall  so  request  and  that  shall  have  a  right 
to  vote,  according  to  the  decision  of  the  arbiter  des- 
ignated in  Article  I,  and  they  will  issue  to  them  reg- 
istration certificates,  which  those  registered  must 
show  in  the  act  of  voting. 

Whenever  the  board  shall  refuse  to  inscribe  the 
name  of  a  person,  it  must  note  in  the  minutes  of  the 
session  of  the  day  the  name  of  the  person  rejected  and 
the  cause  of  his  rejection.  The  person  to  whom  reg- 
istration shall  be  denied  will  have  a  right  to  require 
a  copy  of  that  part  of  the  minutes,  authorized  by  the 
members  of  the  committee. 

Not  later  than  forty-eight  hours  after  the  conclusion 
of  their  functions,  registration  committees  will  de- 
liver the  registers  and  other  original  documents  to  the 
directive  board. 

Article  V. 

The  directive  board  will  determine,  on  the  basis  of 
the  arbitral  decision,  the  means  whereby  shall  be 
proven  the  possession  of  the  qualifications,  which,  ac- 
cording to  the  said  decision,  voters  must  have. 

Article  VI. 

The  directive  board  will  cause  to  be  published  the 
registers  within  ten  days  of  their  reception,  according 
to  the  alphabetical  order  of  the  surname  of  the  per- 
sons listed.  This  publication  will  be  made  in  the  news- 
papers of  Tacna  and  Arica,  and  on  placards  that  will 
be  posted  in  the  most  public  places  of  Lluta  and  Ta- 
rata. 


144 

Within  fifteen  days  after  the  said  publication,  per- 
sons that  shall  have  been  refused  inscription  may  ap- 
pear before  the  directive  board;  and  charges  that  any 
person  may  make  against  the  registration  of  unqual- 
ified persons  may  be  presented  to  the  directive  board. 
After  that  period,  no  claim  will  be  heard,  and  the  reg- 
ister will  be  definitively  constituted,  with  the  con- 
ditions that  the  board  may  have  established;  all  of 
which  will  be  published  immediately  in  the  form  pre- 
scribed in  the  first  section  of  the  present  Article. 

Article  VII. 

Ten  days  after  the  final  closing  of  the  register,  the 
committees  in  charge  of  the  reception  and  scrutiny 
of  the  votes  will  begin  to  function. 

These  committees  will  be  composed  of  the  same  per- 
sons that  will  have  formed  the  registration  commit- 
tees ;  they  will  function  for  ten  consecutive  days,  from 
nine  in  the  forenoon  until  four  in  the  afternoon,  in 
the  same  places  as  the  committees  previously  men- 
tioned ;  namely :  Tacna,  Arica,  Tarata  and  Lluta ;  and 
they  will  adopt  their  resolutions  by  a  majority  vote, 
which  will  be  appealable  to  the  directive  board. 

Every  voter,  at  the  time  of  voting,  will  present  the 
same  certificate  that  he  will  have  received  on  register- 
ing, which  will  remain  in  the  custody  of  the  receiving 
committee,  with  the  mark  of  cancelation,  under  the 
signature  of  all  the  members.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
voter  will  be  granted  a  written  acknowledgment  of 
having  voted.  Daily,  the  result  of  the  voting  will  be 
noted  in  minutes,  which  in  triplicate,  will  be  kept  and 
signed  by  the  members  of  the  committee,  each  of  whom 
shall  preserve  a  copy. 

Article  VIII. 

Not  later  than  three  days  after  the  conclusion  of  the 
receipt  of  the  votes,  the  committees  will  deliver  to  the 
directive  board  of  the  plebiscite  the  minutes  and  other 
documents  of  the  partial  ballots. 


145 

Akticle  IX. 

Six  days  after  the  voting  shall  cease,  the  directive 
board  will  proceed  to  make  a  general  scrutiny,  on  the 
basis  of  the  partial  minutes,  in  public  sessions  and  in 
a  single  meeting,  until  the  proclamation  of  the  result. 

Akticle  X. 

The  directive  board  will  enjoy  complete  inde- 
pendence in  the  exercise  of  its  functions  and  it  may, 
with  a  view  to  guaranteeing  order  and  freedom  in  all 
the  acts  of  the  plebiscite,  demand  of  the  authorities 
the  aid  of  the  public  armed  forces. 

Akticle  XI. 

Neither  the  directive  board  nor  the  registration  or 
receiving  committees  shall  function  save  when  all  the 
members  that  compose  them  are  present.  If  one  of 
the  members  of  the  registration  or  receiving  commit- 
tees shall  be  absent  or  incapacitated  on  the  days  on 
which  they  ought  to  exercise  their  functions,  he  will 
be  replaced  during  his  incapacity  by  the  person  that 
the  representative  that  belongs  to  the  nation  or 
Government  that  appointed  the  one  incapacitated  may 
designate,  with  the  exception  of  the  presiding  com- 
missary, whose  substitute  shall  be  appointed  by  the 
directive  board. 

Article  XII. 

If  the  result  of  the  plebiscite  be  favorable  to  Peru, 
the  representatives  of  the  Government  of  Chile  shall 
deliver  over  to  the  Peruvian  authority  the  territories 
of  Tacna  and  Arica  within  the  maximum  term  of  fif- 
teen days. 

Article1  XIII. 

The  custom-house  of  Arica  will  meet  the  expenses 
occasioned  by  the  acts  of  the  plebiscite  in  the  ter- 
ritories of  Tacna  and  Arica. 


146 


Article  XIV. 


The  fact  that  the  registration  and  receiving  com- 
mittees mentioned  in  the  foregoing  articles  function 
in  Tarata  does  not  imply  a  renouncement  on  the  part 
of  Peru  of  the  pending  claim  in  respect  of  a  part  of 
that  region,  although  this  does  not  signify  a  design 
of  claiming  any  indemnity  for  the  time  that  Chile  has 
occupied  it. 

Article  XV. 

The  indemnity  of  ten  million  pesos'  prescribed  by 
Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  October  20,  1883,  will  be 
paid  by  the  country  that  shall  become  the  owner  of 
the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica  on  the  following 
terms:  one  million  within  the  period  of  ten  days, 
reckoned  from  the  proclamation  of  the  general  re- 
sult of  the  plebiscite;  another  million  within  the  fol- 
lowing year ;  and  two  millions  at  the  end  of  each  year 
of  the  subsequent  four  years. 

The  sums  referred  to  will  be  paid  in  Peruvian  silver 
soles  or  in  Chilean  silver  coin  of  the  kind  that  cir- 
culated at  the  time  when  the  Treaty  of  October  20, 
1883,  was  signed. 

Article  XVI. 

The  total  products  of  the  custom-house  at  Arica 
are  assigned  for  the  payment  of  the  indemnity  men- 
tioned in  the  preceding  article. 

Article  XVII. 

Within  the  period  of  sixty  days,  reckoned  from  the 
exchange  of  ratifications  of  the  present  convention,  the 
diplomatic  representatives  of  the  Republic  of  Chile 
and  the  Republic  of  Peru  to  the  Government  of  Spain 
will  solicit  jointly  from  the  latter  the  acceptance  of 
the  appointment  to  which  Article  I  refers  and  the  de- 
signation of  the  third  party  prescribed  in  Article  II. 


147 

Abticle  XVIII. 

Within  the  period  of  forty  days,  reckoned  from  the 
acceptance  of  the  appointment  by  the  arbiter,  each 
of  the  high  contracting  parties  will  state  its  case  in 
a  written  brief,  which  it  will  present  through  its  pleni- 
potentiary, in  order  that,  by  means  of  it,  and  on  the 
basis  of  the  provisions  of  the  Treaty  of  October  20, 
1883,  and  of  the  present  convention,  it  may  announce 
its  decision. 

The  present  convention  will  be  ratified  by  the  res- 
pective Congresses,  and  the  ratifications  will  be  ex- 
changed at  Santiago,  Chile,  within  the  briefest  period 
possible. 

In  the  next  conference  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Relations  explained  that,  although  His  Excellency  the 
President  of  the  Republic  and  his  other  colleagues 
of  the  Cabinet  had  accepted  the  plan  of  the  stipulated 
convention,  he,  personally,  deemed  it  a  duty  of  deli- 
cacy to  abstain  from  signing  it,  because,  as  was  well 
known,  a  ministerial  crisis  had  supervened  in  the 
meantime.  He  thought  it  more  correct  to  leave  to 
the  free  and  unbiased  judgment  of  his  successor  the 
question  of  giving  to  the  said  plan  the  solemn  charac- 
ter of  an  international  engagement. 

The  Minister  of  Peru  declared  that,  as  for  himself, 
he  upheld  the  plan  in  the  form  stipulated,  and  that 
he  was  ready  to  sign  it  whenever  the  Government  of 
Chile  might  deem  it  proper,  he  lamenting,  indeed,  that 
the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  was  prevented  from 
doing  so  on  the  ground  of  personal  delicacy  that  he 
had  explained,  and  the  nobility  of  which  he  could  do 
no  less  than  respect. 

Two  copies  of  the  present  memorandum  were  signed 
at  Santiago,  April  9,  1898,  by  the  Minister  Plenipo- 
tentiary of  Peru  on  a  special  mission,  Senor  Don 
Guillermo  E.   Billinghurst,  and  by  the   Minister   of 


148 

Foreign   Relations    of   Chile,    Sehor   Don   Raimundo 
Silva  Cruz,  they  sealing  it  with  their  respective  seals. 

GuiLLERMO    E.    BlLLINGHURST. 

Raimundo   Silva  Cruz.    . 


Draft  of  Proceedings  of  Conference,  Submitted  by 
Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs  of  Chile,  on  May  10,  1900. 

[Translation.] 

Met  in  the  hall  of  the  Ministry  of  Foreign  Relations 
of  Chile,  on  April  25  and  May  3  of  the  present  year, 
the  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipoten- 
tiary of  Peru,  Senor  Don  Cesareo  Chacaltana,  and 
the  Minister  of  the  Department,  Seiior  Don  Rafael 
Errazuriz  Urmeneta,  the  former  stated  that  he  had 
solicited  of  the  latter  certain  special  audiences  in  order 
to  discharge  the  mission  that  his  Government  had 
entrusted  to  him;  and  he  added  that,  in  opening  this 
conference,  he  was  animated  by  the  same  sentiments 
as  those  he  had  expressed  in  his  address  of  reception. 
He  also  said  that,  without  intending  to  precipitate 
procedures,  he  desired  to  arrive,  in  harmony  with  the 
Government  of  Chile  and  in  a  tranquil  manner,  at 
the  earliest  possible  solution  of  the  problem  as  to 
definitive  nationality  of  .the  territories  of  Tacna  and 
Arica. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  replied  that  the 
Government  of  Chile  was  animated  by  equal  senti- 
ments and  purposes,  and  that  he,  on  his  part,  would 
consider  himself  happy  if  in  this  conference  they 
should  attain  success  in  giving  to  the  said  provinces 
a  definitive  solution  that  would  be  satisfactory  to 
both  countries. 


149 

The  Minister  of  Peru  proposed  that  the  conference 
should  assume  the  form  of  protocols,  authorized  by 
the  signatures  of  the  negotiators,  and  this  was  ac- 
cepted by  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations. 

The  Minister  of  Peru  then  expressed  the  just  desire 
of  his  Government  that  this  subject  should  be  con- 
cluded during  the  course  of  the  ordinary  legislative 
sessions  of  the  present  year,  to  which  there  could  be 
no  objection,  as  both  Governments  desired  to  settle 
it  as  soon  as  possible.  He  added  that  it  was,  besides, 
necessary  to  overcome  by  some  means  the  delays  that 
had  been  occasioned  and  to  end  the  disquietudes  and 
excitement  produced,  both  in  Chile  and  in  Peru,  by  the 
present  abnormal  situation  and  the  passionate  de- 
bates to  which  it  gives  rise,  thus  hindering  not  in- 
frequently the  tranquil  action  of  both  Chancelleries. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  agreed  to  the 
necessity  of  not  delaying  the  solution  of  the  problem 
under  consideration ;  but,  he  added,  as  the  definitive 
sanction  of  the  respective  scheme  did  not  depend  ex- 
clusively on  the  Executive  Power,  but  also  on  the  Leg- 
islative Chambers,  it  would  be  difficult  for  him  to  fix 
a  period.  Nevertheless,  he  added,  the  Chilean  Govern- 
ment will  try  to  see  to  it  that  the  question  shall  be 
settled  during  the  present  year. 

At  this  stage,  the  conference  was  adjourned,  in 
order  to  continue  it  on  May  3,  which  was  done  in  the 
following  manner: 

The  Minister  of  Peru  explained  that,  in  his  opinion 
the  natural  and  necessary  basis  of  the  convention 
relative  to  the  procedure  that  ought  to  be  followed  in 
determining  the  definitive  nationality  of  the  provinces 
of  Tacna  and  Arica  was  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  and 
especially  the  rules  provided  in  Article  III  the 
terms  of  which  he  recalled.    Although  Peru — he  said — 


150 

set  her  signature  to  that  Treaty  under  quite  excep- 
tional circumstances,  my  Government  believed  that  the 
clauses  of  the  Treaty  ought  not  to  be  disregarded  in 
settling  the  difficulty  indicated.  He  concluded  by  re- 
marking that  he  would  have  omitted  this  declaration 
if  opinions  that  showed  a  tendency  to  ignore  the  per- 
tinency of  the  aforementioned  Treaty,  in  the  part  re- 
called, had  not  been  maintained  recently. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  declared  that  the 
opinions  of  his  Government  coincided  with  those  ex- 
pressed by  the  Minister  of  Peru.  In  the  opinion  of 
the  Government  Chile, — he  said, — as  was  to  be  sup- 
posed, Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  would  have 
to  be  applied  in  formulating  the  bases  of  the  plebi- 
scite as  to  the  definitive  nationality  of  the  provinces 
of  Tacna  and  Arica ;  and  he  concluded  by  saying  that, 
on  this  point,  there  could  be  no  divergence  of  views 
between  the  Chancelleries  of  Chile  and  Peru. 

The  Minister  of  Peru  then  affirmed  that,  being  in 
accord  on  this  point,  he  proposed  in  the  name  of  his 
Government  that  the  Billinghurst-Latorre  Protocol 
should  be  carried  out,  and  to  this  effect  he  requested 
of  the  high  powers  of  Chile  its  definitive  sanction. 
He  spoke  at  length  in  favor  of  this  request  and  he 
adduced  the  following,  which  are  given  in  outline,  as 
the  principal  reasons: 

He  recalled  minutely  the  history  of  the  negotiations 
carried  on  from  1892,  opened  by  Sehores  Larrabure 
y  Unanue  and  Vial  Solar,  until  the  conclusion  of  the 
aforementioned  one  of  the  protocol,  in  the  course  of 
which  not  less  than  eight  efforts  at  an  arrangement 
on  different  bases  had  failed  and  in  which  an  equal 
number  of  years  had  been  employed.  The  Billing- 
hurst  Protocol,  he  said,  is  the  result  of  a  series  of 
efforts,  the  result  of  a  long  and  laborious  diplomatic 


151 

process,  at  the  end  of  which  the  two  Governments 
came  to  an  agreement,  after  eliminating  what  each  of 
them  deemed  incompatible  with  the  fundamental  in- 
terests of  its  country.  If  the  protocol  were  put  aside 
today,  it  would  be  necessary  to  go  back  to  the  begin- 
ning of  an  interminable  and  but  little  short  of  impos- 
sible labor. 

He  explained  also  that  if  the  protocol  were  aban- 
doned, in  concerting  new  bases  of  arrangement,  the 
Government  of  Peru  would  seek  to  obtain  for  its 
country  more  advantageous  conditions  than  those  that 
were  assured  in  that  compact,  and  that  of  Chile  would 
attempt  the  same  thing  for  its  country.  At  all  events, 
neither  of  the  two  Governments  would  resign  itself 
to  accepting  for  its  nation  conditions  more  unfavor- 
able than  those  in  which  the  protocol  placed  it.  The 
two  Republics,  in  such  a  case,  instead  of  drawing 
closer  together,  would  become  more  widely  separated 
from  each  other,  and  thus  the  impossibility  of  a  new 
arrangement  on  different  bases  would  become  accen- 
tuated. 

He  said,  further,  that,  although  the  protocol  in  ques- 
tion did  not  meet  the  extreme  demands  of  either  of 
the  countries,  it  kept  alive  the  expectations  of  both, 
of  the  definitive  acquisition  of  the  territories  of  Tacna 
and  Arica,  and  that  it  constituted,  in  conformity  with 
the  laws  of  modern  civilization,  an  impartial  and  just 
arbiter  to  settle  the  differences  that  had  arisen  as 
to  the  manner  and  conditions  of  the  plebiscite.  If 
by  a  stipulated  arbitration  Chile  exposed  herself  to 
seeing  disregarded  the  rights  and  principles  that  she 
holds  to  be  incontrovertible,  the  same  would  happen 
to  Peru.  What  would  be  neither  just  nor  acceptable  in 
any  case  was  that  either  of  the  two  interested  Govern- 
ments should  attempt  to  constitute  itself  an  arbiter  to 


152 

determine  by  itself  alone  the  manner  and  conditions 
of  the  plebiscite: 

He  continued  that,  with  the  drawing  up  of  the  pro- 
tocol, several  questions  of  importance  had  fallen  into 
abeyance,  and  among  them,  the  demands  of  Peru  as 
to  the  occupation  by  Chile  of  a  part  of  the  province 
of  Tarata,  and  the  objections  opportunely  made  by 
the  former  to  the  occupation  by  the  latter  of  the  prov- 
inces of  Tacna  and  Arica  after  the  ten  years  provided 
for  in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon.  These  and  others  that 
present  themselves  to-day — such  as  the  demand  in 
respect  of  the  schools  of  Tacna  and  Arica  under  the 
direction  of  Peruvian  teachers — would  be  implicitly 
settled  by  the  definitive  sanctioning  of  the  protocol. 

He  concluded  by  pointing  out  that  the  Billinghurst- 
Latorre  pact  had  been  approved  by  the  Executive 
Power  and  by  both  branches  of  the  Legislative  Power 
of  Peru ;  that  the  Government  of  His  Excellency  Senor 
Komana  could  not,  without  disregarding  the  results 
of  the  vote  of  the  Chambers,  still  subsisting,  let  the 
aforementioned  compact  go  by  default;  but,  on  the 
other  hand,  he  sought  to  promote  its  definitive  sanc- 
tioning. In  respect  of  Chile,  he  added,  this  ought  to 
be  also  the  less  difficult  solution  and  the  one  more  in 
harmony  with  the  state  of  the  case  in  the  eyes  of 
her  higher  authorities.  The  protocol,  he  said,  now 
has  the  approval  of  the  Executive  Power  and  of  the 
almost  unanimous  approval  of  the  honorable  legis- 
lators that  composed  the  Senate  of  1898.  The  Govern- 
ment of  His  Excellency  Senor  Errazuriz,  with  a  firm- 
ness of  conviction  worthy  of  the  high  international 
interests  in  dispute,  supported  the  Billinghurst-La- 
torre  arrangement  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  and  he 
again  recommended  its  approval  in  1899.  It  is  natural 
to  cherish  the  hope  that  he  will  make  one  more  effort 


153 

to  secure  its  approval  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies 
about  to  be  inaugurated.  In  this  way,  some  influence 
ought  to  be  exerted  by  the  last  part  of  the  aforemen- 
tioned document,  in  which  it  was  stipulated  that  the 
convention  would  be  ratified  by  the  respective  Con- 
gresses and  the  exchange  would  be  effected  in  the 
briefest  possible  period. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  said  that,  as  was 
known,  the  present  Government  of  Chile  had  agreed 
to  the  adoption  of  this  protocol  and  had  striven  to 
secure  its  approval  in  the  Congress ;  but,  for  reasons 
of  a  different  kind,  a  moment  had  arrived  in  which 
there  sprang  up  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  so  pro- 
nounced a  current  of  opinion  against  the  arrangement 
that,  in  order  not  to  expose  it  to  a  conspicuous  failure, 
he  preferred  not  to  urge  with  more  insistency  that 
the  Chamber  should  express  itself  in  a  vote,  and  the 
Government  decided  to  leave  things  in  the  state  in 
which  they  stand  today.  He  said  likewise  that  it  had 
not  been  concealed  from  him  that  in  the  course  of 
the  last  year  opposition  to  the  protocol  had  increased 
in  Chile,  thus  rendering  the  action  of  her  Govern- 
ment difficult. 

Nevertheless,  he  added,  it  would  be  impossible  to 
say  at  this  moment  what  might  be  the  opinion  that 
would  prevail  in  the  next  Chamber  of  Deputies.  The 
Chamber  had  just  been  wholly  renewed  in  its  com- 
position, and  many  persons  would  enter  it  that  had 
not  belonged  to  it  before.  The  Government  would 
not  be  able  to  ascertain  with  exactitude,  until  the  be- 
ginning of  June,  whether  or  not  there  might  be  a  ma- 
jority favorable  to  the  convention,  and,  consequently, 
whether  or  not  it  might  be  possible  to  count  on  its  con- 
currence in  sanctioning  it  definitively. 

He  explained,  furthermore,  that  his  Government 
was  not  opposed,  in  any  case,  if  Peru  so  desired,  to 


154 

requesting  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  in  the  month 
of  June,  as  indicated  above,  the  special  sessions  neces- 
sary to  taking  up  the  subject  and  settling  it  finally; 
that,  since  this  decision  would  not  depend  on  the 
Executive  Power,  but  on  the  Congress,  he  would  be 
unable,  until  after  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  had  ex- 
pressed itself,  to  give  a  reply  as  to  the  fate  of  the 
protocol. 

Referring  to  the  questions  pending  between  Chile 
and  Peru,  he  said  that,  to  those  already  enumerated, 
would  have  to  be  added  the  one  relative  to  the  claims 
of  Chileans  that  had  suffered  damages  in  the  War  of 
the  Pacific,  provided  for  also  in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon. 

The  Minister  of  Peru  explained  that,  in  reality,  the 
sanctioning  of  the  protocol  did  not  depend  today  on 
the  Executive  Power,  but  on  the  Chamber  of  Deputies ; 
nevertheless,  his  Government  hoped  that,  inasmuch 
as  such  powerful  motives  as  those  already  enunciated 
militated  in  favor  of  this  sanction,  the  Executive 
Power  of  Chile  Avould  urge  it  opportunely  with  the 
same  earnestness  as  that  with  which  he  had  urged  it 
on  other  occasions. 

As  to  the  claims  of  the  Chileans  that  had  suffered 
damages,  he  said  that  he  did  not  doubt  that  an  equita- 
ble and  satisfactory  result  would  be  reached  after  the 
fulfillment  of  this  part  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  and  in 
that  relative  to  the  plebiscite,  and  that  on  this  subject 
a  convention  had  already  been  signed. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  explained  that 
certain  steps  had  been  taken  by  his  Government  in 
reference  to  the  protocol,  which  it  would  not  oppose ; 
but  that,  in  order  to  define  the  attitude  it  would  as- 
sume in  the  next  sessions  of  the  Congress  and  to  give 
a  clear  reply,  it  would  have  to  hope  that  this  attitude 
would  be  determined  in  one  of  the  early  understand- 
ings in  the  Council  of  Ministers. 


155 

The  view  of  this  last  declaration  and  of  the  cir- 
cumstances that  the  definitive  sanction  of  the  protocol 
would  not  depend  on  the  Executive  Power,  which  had 
already  given  its  approval  to  it  and*  was  supporting 
it,  but  on  the  vote  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  it  was 
agreed  to  suspend  these  conferences  until  the  begin- 
ning of  June,  or  earlier,  if  either  the  representative 
of  Chile  or  of  Peru  should  so  request. 


Draft  of  Proceedings  of  Conference,  Submitted  by 
Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Chile  to  Minister 
of  Peru  in  Chile,  on  May  26, 1900. 

[Translation.] 

On  April  25,  and  May  3  of  the  present  year,  met 
in  the  hall  of  the  office  of  the  Ministry  of  Foreign  Re- 
lations, the  Minister  of  the  Department,  Don  Rafael 
Errazuriz  Urmeneta,  and  the  Envoy  Extraordinary 
and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Peru,  Seiior  Don 
Cesareo  Chacaltana,  who,,  in  obedience  to  instructions 
of  his  Government,  had  requested  the  former  to  con- 
fer duly  and  in  special  audiences  as  to  the  object  of 
his  mission,  which  was  to  arrive  at  an  early  solution 
of  the  problem  of  the  definitive  nationality  of  the  ter- 
ritories of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  testified  that  he 
had  acceded  with  pleasure  to  the  immediate  study  of 
this  question,  he  affirming  that  his  Government  was 
animated  by  the  same  spirit  of  cordiality  that  the 
Minister  of  Peru  had  expressed  on  the  part  of  his, 
and  that  he  also  desired  to  settle  as  soon  as  possible 
a  difficulty  that  interfered  with  harmony  between  the 
two  countries. 


156 

The  Minister  of  Peru  requested  that  the  conferences 
that  might  be  held  should  be  protocolized,  and  the 
Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  agreed  to  this,  with  the 
understanding  that  a  record  should  be  made  in  the 
minutes,  signed  by  each,  of  the  agreements  or  dis- 
agreements that  might  arise  over  subjects  of  impor- 
tance that  should  be  discussed. 

At  the  request  of  the  Minister  of  Peru,  the  Minister 
of  Foreign  Eelations  offered  to  solicit  from  the  honor- 
able Chamber  of  Deputies  an  early  expression  as  to 
the  plebiscitary  protocol  of  April  16,  1898. 

After  this  promise,  it  was  agreed  to  adjourn  the 
conferences  for  the  present,  and  they  signed,  et  cetera, 
et  cetera. 


Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Minister  of  Foreign  Re- 
lations of  Chile. 

[Translation.] 
(Number  7.) 

Legation  op  Peru, 

Santiago,  June  12,  1900. 
Mr.  Minister: 

A  few  days  after  presenting  my  credentials  as  En- 
voy Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary,  I 
had  the  pleasure  of  holding  several  conferences  with 
Your  Excellency,  with  a  view  to  carrying  out  the 
instructions  of  my  Government  as  to  the  best  manner 
of  effecting  the  plebiscite  provided  for  in  Article  III 
of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon. 

In  the  first  interview,  held  on  April  25  last,  I 
proposed  the  protocolization  of  our  conferences,  and 
Your  Excellency  was  pleased  to  accept  this  suggestion ; 
but  when  the  moment  arrived  to  adopt  the  minutes  or 
protocol  of  the  first  conference,  we  dissented  as  to 


157 

the  form  and  scope  that  ought  to  be  given  to  the 
document. 

Your  Excellency  has  been  of  the  opinion  that  only 
the  final  result  of  our  deliberations,  expressed  in  the 
form  of  simple  agreements  or  disagreements,  should 
be  recorded;  and  you  have  seen  fit  to  declare  that, 
in  accepting  the  protocolization,  you  did  so  with  the 
understanding  that  no  considerable  development 
would  be  given  to  the  minutes. 

For  my  part,  I  have  made  it  clear  to  Your  Ex- 
cellency that  in  proposing  the  protocolization  I  did  so 
in  order  that,  in  the  respective  minute  or  minutes, 
a  record  should  be  made,  not  only  of  the  final  results 
of  the  conferences,  but  also  of  the  declarations  and 
arguments  of  importance,  as  is  the  custom  in  docu- 
ments of  this  kind.  I  think,  besides,  that  it  would  be 
possible  in  this  way  to  judge  with  accuracy,  at  any 
moment,  of  the  grounds  and  scope  of  any  agreement 
or  disagreement. 

This  regrettable  divergency  of  opinions  has  caused 
Your  Excellency  not  to  accept  the  plan  of  minutes, 
which,  in  the  form  of  a  simple  borrador,  I  deemed  it 
proper  to  submit  to  your  esteemed  consideration,  just 
as  it  has  also  caused  me  not  to  adhere  to  the  counter- 
plan,  which  Your  Excellency,  in  like  manner,  sub- 
mitted to  mine.  From  alll  this  it  has  resulted  that 
hitherto  there  has  been  left  no  record  of  the  said 
conferences. 

My  Government,  in  the  meanwhile,  was  of  the  opin- 
ion that,  granted  the  transcendent  importance  of  the 
subject  that  has  afforded  material  for  our  deliber- 
ations, I  ought  to  leave  a  record  of  the  verbal  at- 
tempts made  in  its  name  and  of  the  essential  motives 
that  have  led  it  to  undertake  them.  In  order  to  ful- 
fill this  duty,  I  proceed  to  recall  the  substance  of  what 
we  have  discussed  in  the  conferences  mentioned. 


158 

When  they  began  on  April  25  of  the  current  year, 
I  had  the  satisfaction  of  testifying  that  I  was  pro- 
ceeding in  response  to  the  same  sentiments  as  those 
expressed  to  His  Excellency  the  President  of  the 
Eepublic  in  my  presentation  address,  and  that,  with 
no  design  of  attaching  undue  importance  to  procedure, 
I  desired  to  arrive,  by  agreement  with  the  Govern- 
ment of  Chile,  in  a  tranquil  manner,  at  a  true  solution 
of  the  problem  of  the  future  fate  of  the  territories 
of  Tacna  and  Arica.  Your  Excellency  saw  fit  to  say 
to  me,  with  this  object  in  view,  that  the  Government 
of  Chile  was  animated  by  identical  sentiments,  and 
that  Your  Excellency,  on  his  part,  would  sincerely 
congratulate  yourself,  if  we  reached  the  solution  of 
the  problem  referred  to  in  a  manner  satisfactory  to 
both  countries. 

Immediately  afterward,  I  proposed,  as  I  have  al- 
ready said,  that  the  conference  be  protocolized,  and 
Your  Excellency  agreed. 

I  then  laid  stress  on  the  just  desire  of  my  Govern- 
ment that  the  Congress  of  Chile  should  see  its  way  to 
settling  this  affair  in  the  course  of  the  legislative 
sessions  of  the  present  year,  both  to  prevent  the 
difficulties  inherent  to  the  state  of  indefinite  postpone- 
ment in  which  it  had  been  left,  and  to  put  an  end  to 
the  disquietudes,  excitement  and  the  passionate  de- 
bates that  are  occasioned  by  every  abnormal  situation, 
which  on  some  occasions  hinders  the  tranquil  action 
of  the  respective  chancelleries.  Your  Excellency, 
agreeing  to  this  opinion,  explained  that  the  Govern- 
ment of  Chile  also  desired  to  settle,  as  soon  as  pos- 
sible, a  difficulty  that  interfered  with  harmony  between 
two  countries,  and  that  he  would  use  all  necessary 
diligence  to  attain  the  object  in  the  course  of  the  pres- 
ent year. 


159 

To  this  our  first  conference  was  limited.  The  sec- 
ond took  place  on  May  3,  in  a  manner  that  I  shall 
proceed  to  indicate. 

In  it,  I  began  by  saying  that  the  natural  and  neces- 
sary basis  of  any  convention  relative  to  the  plebi- 
scitary procedure  that  ought  to  be  observed  for  the 
definitive  settlement  of  the  dominion  and  sovereignty 
of  the  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica  was  to  be  found 
in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  and,  especially,  in  the  rules 
prescribed  in  its  Article  III,  the  terms  of  which  I 
recalled.  Although  Peru,  I  added,  set  her  signature 
to  this  Treaty  under  quite  exceptional  circumstances, 
she  ought  not  to  disregard  its  provisions,  in  the  opin- 
ion of  my  Government,  in  establishing  the  principles 
according  to  which  the  plebiscite  should  be  carried 
into  effect.  I  concluded  by  saying  that  I  should  have 
omitted  this  declaration,  if  opinions  had  not  recently 
been  advanced  that  tended  to  cause  the  application  of 
that  Treaty,  in  the  portion  recalled,  to  be  ignored. 

In  view  of  these  declarations,  Your  Excellency  took 
occasion  to  explain  that  the  opinions  of  your  Govern- 
ment were  the  same;  and  that,  in  its  view,  as  was 
to  be  supposed,  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  ought  to  be  car- 
ried out  in  all  its  parts  in  determining  the  bases 
of  the  plebiscite;  and  you  added  that,  on  this  point, 
there  existed  no  difference  of  opinion  between  the 
Chancelleries  of  Chile  and  Peru. 

With  this  uniformity  of  opinion  as  a  point  of  de- 
parture, I  proposed,  in  behalf  of  the  Government  of 
Peru,  as  a  means  of  fulfilling  as  soon  as  possible 
the  part  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  that  refers  to  the 
plebiscite,  to  push  the  so-called  Billinghurst-Latorre 
Protocol,  with  a  view  to  which  I  requested  Your  Ex- 
cellency to  see  to  it  that  the  Government  should  exert 
itself  to  obtain  its  definitive  sanctioning  on  the  part 


160 

of  the  Congress.  I  went  to  some  length  in  supporting 
this  request,  and  I  adduced  in  its  favor  the  consider- 
ations of  which  I  proceed  to  give  an  outline. 

I  explained,  first  of  all,  that  the  protocol  mentioned 
had  been  the  result  of  many  and  very  arduous  efforts. 
I  recalled  the  negotiations  successively  undertaken 
from  the  time  in  which  they  were  begun  in  the  year 
1892  by  Senores  Larrabure  y  Unanue,  in  the  name  of 
Peru,  and  Vial  Solar,  as  a  representative  of  the 
Government  of  Chile,  until  the  understanding  set  forth 
in  the  different  clauses  of  the  convention  was  reached. 
I  pointed  out  that,  in  the  course  of  those  negotiations, 
no  less  than  eight  efforts  at  arrangement  on  different 
bases  had  failed  and  an  equal  number  of  years  had 
been  employed.  The  Billinghurst-Latorre  Protocol, 
I  said,  was  the  result  of  a  long  and  laborious  dip- 
lomatic process,  at  the  end  of  which  the  interested 
Governments  had  reached  an  accord,  after  eliminating 
what  each  of  them  deemed  incompatible  with  the  fun- 
damental interests  of  its  country,  and  that  if  it  were 
cast  aside,  it  would  be.  necessary  to  return  to  the  be- 
ginning of  a  labor  that  had  been  wearisome,  almost 
interminable  and  probably  of  negative  results. 

I  then  showed  that  if  the  Billinghurst-Latorre  Pro- 
tocol were  rejected  or  abandoned,  it  would  be  little 
short  of  impossible  to  succeed  in  concerting  new  bases 
of  arrangement.  The  Government  of  Peru,  in  the 
course  of  a  new  negotiation,  would  strive  to  obtain 
conditions  more  favorable  than  those  mentioned  in 
the  said  pact;  and  the  Government  of  Chile  would 
make  a  similar  effort  in  its  own  behalf.  At  all  events, 
neither  of  the  Governments  would  resign  itself  to  sub- 
scribing to  conditions  less  favorable  than  those  in 
which  it  had  been  placed  by  the  protocol;  neither 
would  be  disposed  to  stipulate  requisites  that  would 


161 

render  the  situation  of  its  respective  country  worse. 
The  two  Republics,  in  such  a  case,  instead  of  converg- 
ing on  the  path  of  a  definitive  understanding,  would 
increase  the  difference  between  them,  thus  preventing 
the  possibility  of  a  new  understanding  on  different 
bases. 

I  remarked  also  that,  although  the  protocol  does 
not  satisfy  the  extreme  exigencies  of  either  of  the 
countries,  it  keeps  alive  the  claims  of  both  to  the 
definitive  acquisition  of  dominion  and  sovereignty  over 
the  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  and  it  constitutes, 
besides,  in  harmony  with  the  laws  of  modern  civil- 
ization, an  impartial  and  honest  arbiter  to  settle  the 
pending  divergencies  as  to  the  manner  and  conditions 
of  the  plebiscite.  If,  because  of  the  arbitration  agreed 
on,  rights  or  principles,  incontrovertible  in  the  opinion 
of  Chile,  may  be  disregarded,  the  same  may  happen  in 
the  case  of  Peru.  From  this  point  of  view,  the  situation 
of  the  two  countries  has  been  made  equal.  What 
would  in  no  case  be  just  and  acceptable  is  that  either 
of  the  two  countries  should  attempt  to  make  of  her- 
self the  only  arbiter  to  determine  the  manner  and  con- 
ditions of  the  plebiscite.  What  either  of  them  might 
decide  for  herself,  besides  involving  a  procedure  con- 
trary to  what  was  provided  in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon, 
would  have  the  weakness  of  partiality  inherent  to 
every  verdict  pronounced  by  one  that  might  consti- 
tute himself  the  judge  of  his  own  case. 

I  recalled  also  that  with  the  adoption  of  the  Billing- 
hurst-Latorre  Convention,  several  questions  of  im- 
portance had  been  left  in  abeyance,  among  others, 
the  one  relative  to  the  occupation  by  Chile  of  a  part 
of  the  province  of  Tarata,  always  regarded  as  un- 
lawful by  the  Government  of  Peru.  This  question 
and  other  questions  that  present  themselves  at  the 


162 

present  time — such  as  the  one  relative  to  the  closing 
of  the  schools  of  Tacna  and  Arica  presided  over  by 
Peruvian  teachers — would  be  implicitly  solved,  or  on 
the  way  to  being  so,  in  a  short  time  with  the  de- 
finitive sanctioning  of  the  convention  mentioned.  If 
this  convention  were  not  approved,  those  undertak- 
ings would  have  to  enter,  naturally,  a  new  period 
of  activity,  with  prejudice  to  the  good  harmony  that 
ought  to  characterize  the  relations  of  the  two  coun- 
tries. 

I  concluded  by  saying  that  the  protocol  had  been 
approved  by  the  executive  and  by  the  two  branches 
of  the  legislative  power  of  Peru ;  that,  for  this  reason, 
in  addition  to  those  already  adduced,  my  Government 
considered  itself  under  obligation  to  secure,  by  all 
the  legitimate  means  within  its  reach,  its  definitive 
sanction;  that,  for  Chile,  this  solution  was  also  the 
less  difficult  one  and  the  one  most  in  harmony  with 
the  state  of  the  affair  in  respect  of  her  higher  author- 
ities, inasmuch  as  the  protocol  already  had  the  ap- 
proval of  the  Executive  and  that  of  the  Honorable 
Chamber  of  Senators;  that  the  Government  of  His 
Excellency,  Sefior  Errazuriz,  with  the  firmness  of  con- 
viction worthy  of  the  elevated  and  extensive  inter- 
national interests  under  discussion,  had  seconded  the 
arrangement  in  the  legislature  of  1898  and  had  re- 
iterated his  recommendation  that  it  be  adopted  in 
that  of  1899;  that  it  was  natural  to  cherish  the  hope 
that  the  same  Government  would  make  a  new  effort 
to  secure  the  respective  approval  of  the  Chamber  of 
Deputies  soon  to  be  installed;  that  only  in  this  way 
could  there  be  any  explanation  of,  or  any  effect  from, 
the  final  part  of  the  aforementioned  protocol,  in  which 
it  was  stipulated  that  the  convention  would  be  ratified 
by  the  respective  Congresses  and  an  exchange  effected 
within  the  briefest  possible  time. 


163 

In  response  to  my  request,  Your  Excellency  said 
that  unquestionably  the  Government  of  His  Excellency 
Senor  Errazuriz  had  contributed  to  the  adoption  of 
the  protocol  and  had  exerted  itself  to  secure  its  ap- 
proval in  the  Congress ;  but  that,  for  various  reasons, 
there  had  arisen  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  in  1898 
so  pronounced  a  movement  of  opinion  against  the 
arrangement  that,  in  order  not  to  expose  it  to  an  un- 
questionable defeat,  it  was  preferable  not  to  urge 
with  more  insistence  an  expression  by  that  Honorable 
Chamber.  Your  Excellency  also  told  me  that  he  could 
not  affirm  at  that  moment  what  might  be  the  prevail- 
ing opinion  in  the  Honorable  Chamber  of  Deputies, 
which  had  just  been  totally  renewed,  by  reason  of 
which  many  persons  that  had  not  belonged  to  it  for- 
merly would  enter  its  membership  in  the  capacity  of 
representatives.  The  Government,  Your  Excellency 
added,  could  not  learn  until  after  this  Chamber  should 
be  constituted  whether  or  not  there  would  be  a  major- 
ity in  favor  of  the  convention  and  whether  or  not  it 
would  be  able  to  obtain  its  support  in  favor  of  its 
definitive  sanctioning. 

In  spite  of  all  this,  Your  Excellency  saw  fit  to  offer 
to  request  the  Honorable  Chamber  of  Deputies  to  ex- 
pedite its  decision  as  to  that  convention.  Your  Ex- 
cellency added  that  he  saw  no  objection  to  requesting 
of  it  the  special  sessions  necessary  to  taking  up  the 
subject,  and  that,  inasmuch  as  the  awaited  resolution 
did  not  now  depend  on  the  Executive,  but  on  the  Honors 
able  Chamber  of  Deputies,  he  would  be  unable  to  give 
me  new  and  certain  data  as  to  the  fate  of  the  protocol 
until  after  the  meeting  of  the  Chamber. 

Your  Excellency,  referring  in  an  incidental  manner 
to  questions  pending  between  Chile  and  Peru,  said 
that,  to  those  indicated  by  me  ought  to  be  added  the 


164 

one  relative  to  claims  by  Chileans  that  had  suffered 
damages  in  the  War  of  the  Pacific. 

I  replied,  on  my  part,  that  it  was  true  that  the 
definitive  sanctioning  of  the  protocol  did  not  depend 
on  the  Executive  Power,  but  on  the  Honorable  Chamber 
of  Deputies ;  but  my  Government  trusted — since  there 
existed  such  powerful  motives  in  favor  of  its  ap- 
proval— that  the  Executive  Power  of  Chile  would  urge 
it  opportunely  with  the  same  earnestness  as  that  with 
which  it  had  been  urged  on  other  occasions.  As  to 
the  claims  of  the  Chileans  that  had  suffered  damages, 
I  explained  that  I  did  not  doubt  that  an  equitable 
result  would  be  arrived  at,  with  the  fulfillment  of  this 
part  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  and  of  that  which  re- 
fers to  the  plebiscite,  and  in  reference  to  this  mat- 
ter, as  I  recalled,  a  convention  had  been  signed. 

Your  Excellency  insisted  on  his  previous  declar- 
ations and  on  the  offer  to  request  of  the  next  Con- 
gress an  early  settlement  of  the  affair,  without  ex- 
pressing with  precision  what  would  be  the  attitude 
of  the  Government  in  respect  of  the  debate  in  the 
Honorable  Chamber  of  Deputies,  in  spite  of  my  effort 
to  gain  a  clear  and  categorical  reply  in  reference  to 
the  particular. 

In  view  of  the  circumstance  that  the  definitive  sanc- 
tioning of  the  protocol  did  not  depend  on  the 
Executive,  who  had  already  given  to  it,  and  still  grants 
it  his  approval,  but  on  the  vote  of  the  Honorable 
Chamber  of  Deputies,  it  was  agreed  to  postpone  the 
designation  of  special  days  for  the  continuation  of 
the  conferences,  as  they  could  be  renewed  whenever 
either  the  representative  of  Chile  or  that  of  Peru 
should  so  request. 

Subsequently  to  the  two  conferences  mentioned,  I 
had  the  honor  to  discuss  this  subject  with  Your  Ex- 


165 

cellency,  frequently  and  at  length,  and  I  have  always 
insisted  on  the  necessity  and  expediency  of  the  Honor- 
able Chamber  of  Deputies'  approval  of  the  Billing- 
hurst-Latorre  Protocol  in  the  course  of  its  sessions 
of  the  present  year,  in  order  to  put  an  end  to  this 
delicate  and  difficult  subject. 

The  foregoing  narrative  is  based,  as  is  to  be  sup- 
posed, on  my  own  recollections;  but  I  am  persuaded 
that  in  it  is  reflected  with  fidelity,  especially  in  the 
part  that  concerns  myself,  what  occurred  in  the  con- 
ferences mentioned.  I  am  ready,  nevertheless  to 
rectify  any  error  into  which  I  may  have  involuntarily 
fallen. 

Before  concluding  this  communication,  Your  Ex- 
cellency will  permit  me  to  leave  it  on  record,  in  sup- 
porting my  petition  as  to  the  approval  of  the  Billing- 
hurst  Latorre  Protocol,  that  I  passed  over  reasons 
that  might  militate  in  its  favor  and  stated  it  only 
from  the  point  of  view  of  Chilean  interests  or  Peru- 
vian interests.  It  may  be  understood  that,  in  con- 
certing the  arrangement  alluded  to,  th$  represent- 
atives of  the  two  nations,  avoiding  the  method  of  ex- 
treme demands,  which  would  have  made  all  agreement 
impossible,  took  their  stand  on  the  grounds  which,  in 
their  judgment,  best  harmonized  the  interests  of  the 
two  countries.  The  efforts  of  my  Government  are 
addressed  to  preventing  the  abandonment  of  that 
situation,  the  destruction  of  that  harmony  and  the 
postponement  of  the  fulfillment  of  this  part  of  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon  to  an  uncertain  and  indefinite  future. 

I  ought  also  to  explain  to  Your  Excellency  that, 
as  the  only  object  of  the  present  communication  has 
been  to  place  on  record  the  essential  part  of  our  con- 
ferences, I  have  deemed  it  unnecessary  to  enter  into 
details  as  to  motives  that  have  served  as  a  basis  of 


166 

the  petition  that  I  formulated.  I  therefore  reserve 
the  right  to  amplify  them  duly,  if  my  Government 
should  deem  it  necessary  to  do  so,  when  the  time  comes 
to  decide  this  question  in  the  Honorable  Chamber  of 
Deputies. 

I  take  this  opportunity  to  renew  to  Your  Excellency 
the  sentiments  of  my  highest  and  most  distinguished 
consideration. 

Cesareo  Chacaltana. 
To  His  Excellency, 

Senor  Don  Rafael  Errazuriz  y  Urmeneta, 
Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Peru  to  Minister  of 
Chile  in  Peru. 

[Translation.] 
(Number  13.) 

Ministry  of  Foreign  Relations, 
Lima,  July  10,  1900. 
Mr.  Minister: 

On  March  12th,  last,  and  on  my  initiative,  I  had 
the  honor  to  confer  with  Your  Excellency  on  the 
orders  which  the  political  authorities  in  Tacna  and 
Arica  had  adopted  with  regard  to  the  Peruvian 
schools,  whose  operation  had  just  been  prohibited. 

I  laid  before  you,  at  great  length,  the  reasons 
which,  in  my  judgment,  made  the  order  for  immediate 
closing,  issued  by  those  authorities  against  said 
schools,  indefensible,  by  virtue  of  which,  and  believ- 
ing that  the  Government  of  Chile  would  not  ratify  it, 
I  asked  Your  Excellency  to  condescend  to  obtain  its 
revocation. 

After  Your  Excellency  made  it  known  to  me  that 
you  were  not  acquainted  with  the  affair,  nor  had  any- 
thing been  communicated  to  you  in  regard  to  same, 


167 

you  were  good  enough  to  offer  to  take  it  under  con- 
sideration immediately  bringing  my  request  to  the 
knowledge  of  your  Government,  in  order  to  give  me 
a  reply  in  the  shortest  time  possible. 

As  two  months  had  passed  without  obtaining  it,  it 
was  again  necessary  for  me  to  trouble  Your  Excel- 
lency, making  an  appointment  for  a  second  conference 
which  was  held  on  the  23d  of  last  May.  Already  Your 
Excellency's  Government  had  ratified  the  order  for 
the  closing  of  those  schools,  after  taking  up  the  matter 
in  Santiago;  but  at  the  same  time  it  had  been  shown 
to  our  diplomatic  representative,  Sr.  Chacaltana,  who 
had  occasion  to  deal  with  the  affair  in  an  incidental 
way,  that  the  resolution  adopted  should  not  be  taken 
as  conclusive,  and  that  the  Intendant  of  Tacna  had 
been  called  to  that  city,  in  order  to  make  a  study 
as  to  whether  it  was  possible  to  modify  it  in  any 
way. 

With  this  data,  which  Sr.  Chacaltana  hurried  to 
send  me,  and  as  sufficient  time  'had  passed  for  the 
said  modification,  I  made  it  plain  to  Your  Excellency, 
in  the  aforesaid  conference  of  May  23d,  that  the  object 
of  it  was  to  know,  definitely,  if  the  measures  adopted 
against  our  schools  were  conclusive.  I  summed  up 
to  Your  Excellency  that  my  desire  to  know  what 
course  to  pursue  in  this  respect  arose,  not  only  from 
the  natural  interest  with  which  I  was  following  the 
course  of  the  matter,  but,  especially,  from  the  neces- 
sity for  me  to  draw  up  in  writing,  my  Government's 
complaint  in  defense  of  the  closed  schools,  and  I  did 
not  wish  to  address  the  respective  note  to  Your  Ex- 
cellency, but  in  case  it  was  now  evident  that  the  course 
undertaken  would  not  be  receded  from,  then  I  would 
find  myself  urged  on  by  the  aim  to  diminish,  as  much 
as  was  possible  for  me,  the  difficulties  which  obstruct 
both  Governments  in  the  situation. 


168 

By  reason  of  this,  Your  Excellency  explained  to  me, 
as  you  did  in  our  conference  of  March  12th,  the  little 
which  you  knew  about  the  matter,  and  were  good 
enough  to  offer  to  request  the  true  and  complete  data 
in  order  to  place  yourself  in  a  position  to  give  me 
the  reply  which  I  asked  for. 

A  month  and  a  half  has  passed,  nevertheless,  since 
then,  and  neither  have  I  received,  nor  has  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Your  Excellency  introduced,  any  modifi- 
cation to  the  order  for  closing  the  schools,  now  being 
effected  with  its  express  ratification,  a  circumstance 
which,  much  to  my  regret,  prevents  me  from  any 
longer  deferring  the  present  note,  in  order  to  make 
it  emphatic  and  clear  in  writing  that,  as  I  informed 
Your  Excellency  since  our  conference  of  the  12th  of 
last  March,  the  closing  of  the  Peruvian  schools  in 
Tacna  and  Arica,  is,  in  the  opinion  of  my  Govern- 
ment, contrary  to  the  laws  of  Chile  and,  consequently, 
contrary  to  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  which  dictates  their 
force  and  effect  in  these  territories. 

According  to  the  Chilean  law  of  November  24,  1860, 
the  only  requisite  for  the  teachers  for  the  opening 
of  the  schools  of  primary  instruction  is  that  they 
prove,  by  the  testimony  of  two  creditable  persons,  that 
they  have  good  character  and  habits,  a  formality 
which  has  been  fulfilled  for  a  long  time  back  by  a 
large  part  of  those  who  govern  the  Peruvian  schools 
in  those  provinces,  and  by  virtue  of  which  there  had 
been  granted  to  them  the  corresponding  license  for 
the  opening  of  their  schools.  As  to  those  who  had 
neglected  it  and  therefore  did  not  hold  the  license, 
they  made  haste  to  request  it,  offering  that  testimony 
within  the  time  which  the  administration  of  Tacna 
pointed  ont  for  that  purpose,  in  the  decree  of  last 
February    9th,    in    compliance    with    which    the    first 


169 

showed  the  licenses  which  they  held,  with  the  request 
that  they  be  confirmed,  as  they  had  a  right  to  expect, 
having  already  complied  with  the  only  requisite  de- 
manded by  the  law. 

Neither  the  one  nor  the  other  were  heeded  in  such 
candid  and  legitimate  petitions,  whose  determination 
was  submitted  to  the  Government  at  Santiago,  and, 
without  even  expecting  it,  as  was  natural,  that  that 
decision  would  be  expedited,  the  Intendant  of  Tacna, 
on  March  6th,  last,  actually  ordered  the  immediate 
closing  of  all  Peruvian  schools  in  both  provinces;  a 
situation  in  which  they  were  kept  because  of  the  later 
approval  of  the  order  to  close  by  Your  Excellency's 
Government. 

The  text  of  the  decree  or  resolution  issued  to  that 
effect  not  having  been  published,  it  is  not  proper 
for  me  to  refute  the  reasons  which,  accordiug  to  the 
data  given  to  the  press,  have  formed  its  foundation; 
but,  whatever  they  may  be,  there  is  no  doubt  that, 
to  the  prejudice  of  our  nationals,  the  liberal  laws 
of  Chile  on  public  instruction  have  been  violated,  laws 
in  harmony  with  her  Constitution,  which  recognizes  to 
all  the  right  of  teaching,  and  under  the  protection  of 
which  the  schools  that  have  been  closed  worked  pub- 
licly and  without  any  hindrance. 

My  Government,  notwithstanding  its  sincere  desire 
to  avoid  offensive  discussions,  would  fail  in  an  un- 
avoidable duty  if,  in  view  of  this  fact,  it  did  not  make 
clear  what  it  deems  contrary  to  the  obligations  con- 
tracted for  by  Chile  in  the  Treaty  of  xVncon. 
.  In  fact,  the  latter  sets  down,  in  Article  III,  as  a 
guarantee  indispensable  for  our  nationals  living  in 
Tacna  and  Arica,  that  during  the  occupation  those 
provinces  would  be  governed  by  Chilean  legislation, 
which  does  not  permit  Chile  to  violate  her  general 


170 

Jaws  thus  not  keeping  up  to  the  stipulations.  Peru 
did  not  agree  to  the  temporary  occupation  of  those 
territories,  leaving  its  inhabitants  liable  to  be  gov- 
erned by  laws  or  administrative  orders  of  exception, 
but  to  the  protection  of  enlightened  legislation  which 
would  give  a  real  guarantee  to.  all  their  rights;  their 
Government,  which  is  obliged  to  protect  its  nationals, 
cannot  therefore,  remain  indifferent  to  the  measure 
recently  adopted  against  the  schools  conducted  by 
Peruvians,  by  means  of  which,  making  the  odious 
exception,  those  in  the  territory  where  they  were  born 
would  be  deprived  of  a  right  which  the  laws  of  Chile 
recognize  in  nationals  and  foreigners. 

Your  Excellency's  Government,  doubtless  under- 
standing the  obligations  which  the  occupation  of  those 
provinces  imposed  upon  it,  should  have,  hitherto,  com- 
plied with  and  enforced  the  laws  to  which  they  are 
subject,  and,  it  is  really  deplorable  that,  on  the  eve  of 
resolving  their  definitive  status,  there  should  have 
been  adopted  odious  orders  such  as  the  one  which  now 
holds  my  attention,  and  others  which  do  not  cor- 
respond to  a  precarious  possession,  thereby  exciting 
the  public  sentiment  in  both  countries,  with  damage 
to  their  smooth  and  cordial  operation  advised  by  both 
Chancelleries. 

Kindly,  Mr.  Minister,  accept  again  the  assurances 
of  my  high  and  distinguished  consideration. 

E.  DE  LA  RlVA  AgUERO. 

To  His  Excellency, 
The  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister 
Plenipotentiary  of  Chile. 


171 

Minister  of  Chile  in  Peru  to  Minister  of  Foreign  Rela- 
tions of  Peru. 

[Translation.] 
(No.  47.) 

Legation  of  Chile, 

Lima,  July  11, 1900. 
Me.  Minister: 

There  has  been  received  by  this  Legation  Your  Ex- 
cellency's note  dated  the  10th  instant,  and  numbered 
13,  in  which  Your  Excellency  gives  a  brief  story  of  the 
Conferences,  which  you  held  with  the  undersigned  on 
March  12th  and  May  23d  of  the  present  year,  oc- 
casioned by  the  measures  which  the  authorities  of 
Tacna  and  Arica,  and  then  the  Government  of  Chile, 
deemed  it  advisable  to  take  with  respect  to  the  estab- 
lishments of  primary  instruction,  governed  by  Peru- 
vian teachers,  in  the  said  provinces,  Your  Excellency, 
then,  cites  lengthy  accounts,  tending  to  show  that  the 
closing  of  the  Peruvian  schools  in  Tacna  and  Arica, 
is,  in  the  opinion  of  Your  Excellency's  Government, 
contrary  to  Chilean  legislation,  and,  consequently  to 
the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  which  dictates  its  force  and  effect 
in  those  territories.  And  lastly,  after  relating  the 
development  of  events  which,  by  reason  of  this,  have 
taken  place  in  the  said  provinces,  Your  Excellency 
concludes  by  declaring  that  it  is  deplorable  that,  on 
the  eve  of  resolving  the  definitive  status  of  Tacna  and 
Arica,  the  Government  of  Chile  should  have  adopted 
odious  orders,  such  as  the  ones  which  it  has  approved, 
and  others  which  do  not  correspond  to  a  precarious 
possession,  thereby  exciting  the  public  sentiment  in 
both  countries,  with  damage  to  their  smooth  and  cor- 
dial operation  advised  by  both  Chancelleries. 

It  would  have  been  very  gratifying  for  the  under- 
signed to  start  to  fully  answer  the  statements  con- 


172 

tained  in  Your  Excellency's  note,  showing  the  facts 
and  antecedents  which  have  existed  on  the  intention 
of  his  Government,  for  deciding  to  adopt,  after  careful 
examination,  the  measures  relative  to  the  closing  of  the 
said  schools ;  as  well  as  the  legal  considerations  which 
authorizes  this  procedure;  but,  as  Your  Excellency 
does  not  fail  to  comprehend,  the  problem  of  Tacna  and 
Arica,  and  all  the  incidents  which  are  related  to  it, 
have  been  for  a  short  time  back  and  still  are  the  sub- 
ject of  study  and  discussions  in  repeated  confer- 
ences held  between  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations 
of  Chile  and  Sr.  Cesareo  Chacaltaria,  authorized  repre- 
sentative of  Your  Excellency's  Government.  This 
fact  of  the  negotiation  of  this  delicate  matter  having 
been  well  started  in  Santiago,  the  undersigned  does 
not  deem  it  right  nor  prudent  to  open  in  Lima, 
a  similar  discussion,  which  would  naturally  result 
in  disturbance  and  misunderstandings  between  our 
Chancelleries,  which  today,  as  Your  Excellency  under- 
stands, it  is  in  every  way  discreet  and  expedient  to 
avoid. 

The  undersigned  takes  this  occasion  to  again  renew 
to  Your  Excellency  the  sentiments  of  his  highest  con- 
sideration and  esteem. 

Angel  C.  Vicuna. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru. 


173 

Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile  to  Minister  of 
Pern  in  Chile. 

[Translation.] 
(Number  583.) 

Republic  of  Chile, 

Ministry  of  Foreign  Relations, 

Santiago,  July  12, 1900. 
Mr.  Minister: 

I  have  had  the  honor  to  receive  Your  Excellency's 
courteous  communication  of  the  twelfth  of  June,  just 
past,  and  I  beg  Your  Excellency  to  have  the  goodness 
to  excuse  the  involuntary  delay  of  my  reply,  which 
must  be  attributed  solely  to  the  excessive  work  that 
has  fallen  to  my  lot  during  recent  days,  as  Your  Ex- 
cellency is  aware. 

In  the  note  to  which  I  reply,  Your  Excellency  sees 
fit  to  give  a  circumstantial  narrative  of  the  conferences 
Tield  with  the  undersigned  in  the  hall  of  his  office  on 
April  25  and  May  3  of  the  present  year ;  and,  although 
I  do  not  need  to  pause  over  the  minute  account  of 
what  occurred  in  them  or  over  subjects  we  had  the 
pleasure  of  discussing,  I  desire,  nevertheless,  on  my 
part,  to  confirm  or  to  explain  some  of  the  opinions 
that  Your  Excellency  places  on  record. 

In  truth,  after  agreeing,  at  Your  Excellency's  re- 
quest, to  the  protocolization  of  the  conferences  we 
were  to  hold — an  agreement  at  which  we  arrived  on 
very  imprecise  terms — there  arose  between  us  a  dif- 
ference of  views  as  to  the  manner  of  proceeding  to 
the  stipulated  protocolization. 

Your  Excellency,  attaching  to  the  agreement  a  very 
broad  scope,  conceived  it  to  be  necessary  that  we 
should  sign  extensive  minutes,  in  which  would  be  in- 
corporated, with  amplitude  and  detail,  all  the   sub- 


174 

jects  that  had  been  material  of  our  conversation  or 
study.  On  my  part,  as  I  attributed  to  it  a  more 
restricted  scope,  I  declared  that  I  had  accepted  Your 
Excellency's  suggestion  under  the  opinion  that  we 
should  place  on  record,  in  the  said  protocols,  the 
subjects  of  importance  that  we  might  discuss,  the 
agreements  at  which  we  might  arrive,  or  the  disagree- 
ments which,  unfortunately,  might  arise  between  us. 

This  bad  understanding  having  arisen  as  to  the 
interpretation  of  the  covenant,  which  anyhow  has 
neither  importance  nor  gravity,  and  it  not  having  been 
possible  to  come  to  an  agreement  as  to  the  drafting 
of  the  protocol  we  agreed  that  Your  Excellency  ad- 
dress to  this  Chancellery  a  communication  containing 
a  report  of  what  had  happened  in  the  previous  meet- 
ings, and  this  is  the  reason  for  Your  Excellency's 
note,  to  which  I  now  have  the  honor  to  reply. 

My  Government,  as  I  have  been  pleased  to  explain 
to  Your  Excellency  on  several  occasions,  is  intensely 
interested  in  bringing  to  a  conclusion,  as  soon  as  pos- 
sible, the  prolonged  discussions  and  negotiations  de- 
signed to  arrive  at  a  solution  of  the  problem  of  the 
definitive  nationality  of  the  territories  of  Tacna  and 
Arica,  and  in  the  maintenance  of  cordiality  between 
our  respective  countries  in  a  stable  and  sincere 
manner.  As  to  the  latter  particular,  I  am  pleased  to 
emphasize  the  fact  that,  like  the  Government  of  Peru, 
my  Government  is  also  animated  by  a  friendly  design 
and  best  wishes  for  an  early  and  satisfactory  settle- 
ment of  all  the  difficulties. 

In  the  conference  of  May  3,  Your  Excellency  was 
pleased  to  inform  me  that  the  opinion  of  Your  Excel- 
lency's Government,  the  natural  and  obligatory  basis 
of  any  convention  as  to  the  plebiscitary  procedure  that 
ought  to  be  observed  for  the  definitive  settlement  of 


175 

the  dominion  and  sovereignty  over  the  territories  of 
Tacna  and  Arica  was  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  and  especi- 
ally the  rules  prescribed  in  its  Article  III. 

On  my  part,  I  had  the  honor  to  show  that  my 
Government  has  no  desire  to  disregard  the  loyal  ful- 
fillment of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  by  which  it  considers 
itself  bound  as  by  all  other  existing  treaties  and  con- 
ventions, and  hence  that  Your  Excellency  ought  not 
to  entertain  any  doubt  as  to  this  point. 

With  this  basis  as  a  point  of  departure,  Your  Ex- 
cellency proposed,  as  a  means  to  an  early  fulfillment 
of  the  said  Treaty,  to  push  the  Billinghurst-Latorre 
protocol  by  requesting,  to  the  effect,  that  my  Govern- 
ment should  secure  the  definitive  sanctioning  of  it 
by  the  National  Congress. 

I  think  it  unnecessary  to  insist  on  the  extensive  con- 
siderations on  which  Your  Excellency  considered  it 
opportune  to  base  his  request,  and  I  must  confine 
myself  to  reproducing  here  some  of  the  thoughts  ex- 
pressed by  the  undersigned  in  reply  to  those  Your 
Excellency  included  in  his  courteous  communication. 

Without  desiring  to  declare  myself  as  to  the  es- 
sence of  the  subject,  that  is,  as  to  the  merits  of  the 
protocol  mentioned,  I  set  forth  that,  in  spite  of  the 
efforts  of  the  Government  of  1898  to  obtain  its  ap- 
proval, it  was  impossible  to  ignore  the  fact  that  there 
had  developed  in  the  membership  of  the  Honorable 
Chamber  of  Deputies  of  the  time  so  active  an  op- 
position that  all  the  good  will  and  all  the  effort  of 
the  Government  had  come  to  naught  against  it. 

Nevertheless,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Minister 
insisted  on  behalf  of  the  Government  of  Peru  that 
the  approval  of  the  said  protocol  should  be  obtained 
from  that  branch  of  the  Congress,  the  undersigned 
promised  Your  Excellency  to  go  to  the  Chamber  on  an 


176 

early  and  opportune  day  to  request  of  it  definitive 
expression. 

It  is  true  that  Your  Excellency  endeavored  on 
several  occasions  to  obtain  an  explicit  declaration  from 
my  Government  as  to  the  attitude  it  would  assume 
in  the  discussion,  and  that  the  undersigned,  on  grounds 
frequently  adduced,  the  repetition  of  which  would  be 
unnecessary,  always  confined  himself  to  promising 
what  has  been  said. 

It  is  equally  true  that,  in  reply  to  Your  Excellency's 
assertion  that  there  existed  several  difficulties  be- 
tween the  two  countries,  I  added  that  we  also  had 
pending  the  claim  of  Chileans  that  had  suffered 
damages  in  the  war  of  1879,  and  I  explained  the  neces- 
sity of  the  Congress  of  Peru's  approving  the  con- 
vention of  arbitration,  which  was  approved  long  ago 
by  the  Government  and  the  Congress  of  Chile. 

The  course  of  diplomatic  negotiations  being  then 
subordinated  to  the  future  decision  of  the  Honorable 
Chamber  of  Deputies,  independent  of  the  actions  of 
the  Chancelleries  at  that  time,  we  both  agreed  to  ter- 
minate the  conferences  for  the  moment,  without  pre- 
judice to  renewing  them  later,  at  the  request  of  either 
of  the  two  plenipotentiaries. 

With  the  sentiments  of  my  most  distinguished  con- 
sideration, I  am, 

Your  Excellency's  most  humble  servant, 

R.  Errazuriz  Urmeneta. 
To  His  Excellency, 

Senor  Don  Cesareo  Chacaltana, 

Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipoten- 
tiary of  Peru. 


177 

Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Minister  of  Foreign  Af- 
fairs of  Chile. 

[Translation.] 

Santiago,  October  8,  1900. 
Me.  Minister: 

In  view  of  the  disputes  before  the  judges  of  Tacna 
and  Pisagua,  on  the  ownership  and  location  of  the 
borax  deposits  of  Chilcaya,  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs  of  Peru  sent  a  communication  to  the  Charge 
d 'Affaires  of  Chile,  Sr.  Carlos  Luis  Hubner,  dated 
January  15th  of  the  current  year,  in  which  he  formu- 
lated certain  reservations  intended  to  safeguard,  in  all 
emergencies,  the  rights  of  Peru. 

It  was  stated  in  the  aforementioned  document  that 
the  Government  of  Chile  could  not  proceed  to  the  de- 
termination of  the  boundaries  of  the  territories  situ- 
ated to  the  north  of  the  ravine  and  River  Camarones, 
if  thereby  the  integrity  of  said  territories  were  affec- 
ted in  any  way;  that  the  demarcation  asked  for  by 
the  parties  interested  in  the  borax  deposits,  should 
be  made  with  the  intervention  of  Peru,  which  country 
maintains  the  expectations  derived  from  Article  III 
of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  of  1883 ;  and  that  the  demarca- 
tion recognized  in  this  pact  for  Tacna  and  Arica  is  the 
same  which  said  political  circumscriptions  had  per- 
manently, which  could  not  be  affected,  not  even  in  a 
temporary  way,  by  the  resolutions  of  the  Government 
of  Your  Excellency. 

In  the  past,  before  the  departure  to  the  north  of  the 
commission  presided  over  by  Sr.  A.  Obrecht,  I  had 
the  opportunity  to  remind  Your  Excellency,  in  your 
office,  in  a  verbal  and  friendly  way,  of  the  said  de- 
clarations of  the  Peruvian  Government.  I  was  induced 
to  do   this   as   much  by  the  possibility  that   at   any 


178 

moment  a  final  resolution  might  be  adopted  as  by  the 
reports  and  arrangements  recently  effected  with  re- 
gard to  this  matter,  in  some  of  which  it  was  endeavored 
to  outline  conclusions  contrary  to  those  established  in 
the  Treaty  of  Ancon. 

With  this  object,  Your  Excellency  saw  fit  to  ex- 
press to  me  the  assurance  that  whatever  resolution 
would  be  passed  in  this  matter  would  be  passed  with 
the  exclusive  purposes  of  internal  administration,  with- 
out affecting  international  order,  respecting  the  ex- 
pectations and  rights  derived  from  the  Treaty  of  An- 
con; an  assurance  which  had  been  given  in  like  form 
by  Sr.  Hubner  in  his  answer  to  the  Chancellery  of 
Lima. 

In  spite  of  this,  until  I  am  in  receipt  of  new  in- 
structions from  my  Government,  to  which  I  have  given 
an  account  of  the  recent  negotiations  to  which  this 
matter  has  been  subject,  I  consider  it  my  duty  to  re- 
cord, in  writing,  once  more  the  reservations  made  and 
maintained  by  Peru  with  regard  to  the  fixing  of  the 
boundaries  between  Arica  and  Pisagua. 

At  the  same  time,  I  beg  to  call  the  attention  of  Your 
Excellency  to  the  circumstance  that  in  discussing  the 
fixing  of  the  boundary  with  exclusive  purposes  of  in- 
ternal administration,  the  Government  of  Chile  can- 
not subject  any  part  of  the  territories  situated  to  the 
north  of  the  ravine  and  Eiver  Camarones,  over  which 
it  does  not  exercise  dominion  and  definite  sovereignty, 
according  to  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  to  the  same  rules 
and  conditions  as  the  territory  situated  to  the  south 
of  the  aforementioned  ravine  and  river. 

I  hope  that  Your  Excellency  will  be  good  enough 
to  take  into  account  the  previous  observations,  in- 
spired by  the  desire  to  safeguard  the  legitimate  in- 
terests of  Peru  which  might  be  involuntarily  affected, 


179 

with  the  purpose  of  avoiding  difficulties  in  the  onward 
march  of  our  respective  countries. 

I  take  this  opportunity  to  reiterate  to  Your  Excel- 
lency my  highest  and  most  distinguished  considera- 
tion. 

Cesaeeo  Chacaltana. 
To  His  Excellency, 

Sr.  Rafael  Errazuriz  Urmeneta, 
Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs. 


Minister   of  Peru  in   Chile   to   Minister   of  Foreign 
Affairs  of  Chile. 

[Translation.] 
(No.  25.) 

Legation  of  Peru  in  Chile, 

Santiago,  November  14,  1900. 

Mr.  Minister: 

The  Government  of  Your  Excellency,  as  if  it  en- 
deavored to  correct  inexplicable  omissions,  has  adopted 
a  series  of  agreements,  some  of  which  have  been  ful- 
filled and  others  of  which  are  in  process  of  being  car- 
ried out,  relative  to  the  political  and  administrative  re- 
gime of  Tacna  and  Ariea,  endeavoring  to  induce  the 
Peruvian  population  of  those  provinces — hitherto  op- 
posed to  any  change  of  nationality — to  take  new 
courses  in  their  aspirations  for  the  future. 

An  enterprise  as  difficult  as  it  is  laborious  has  been 
undertaken,  with  special  zeal,  in  the  last  ten  months, 
that  is,  six  years  after  the  expiration  of  the  term  of 
the  provisional  occupation  of  Chile,  according  to  the 
Treaty  of  Peace  of  1883 ;  eight  years  after  there  was 
arranged  by  agreement,  at  the  initiative  of  Peru,  the 


180 

form  and  conditions  of  the  plebiscite ;  seventeen  years 
after  subscription  to  the  above  mentioned  pact;  and 
twenty  years  after  the  aforementioned  provinces  were 
placed  under  the  government  and  administration  of 
the  Chilean  authorities.  The  Government  of  Your 
Excellency  seems  to  have  the  purpose  of  realizing  in 
a  few  months  that  which  was  not  intended  or  could  not 
be  carried  out  during  a  period  of  twenty  years. 

Said  agreements,  either  because  they  are  considered 
untimely  and  too  late,  or  because  they  are  considered 
contrary  to  the  stipulations  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon, 
or  because  there  are  attributed  to  them  tendencies  ex- 
tremely imperative,  or  because  it  is  supposed  that  they 
are  destined  to  restrain  the  legitimate  expansion  of 
public  sentiment,  or  because,  lastly,  all  these  consider- 
ations at  the  same  time  have  shaken  the  national  con- 
science of  Peru,  have  originated  mistrusts  among  the 
nationals  of  our  respective  countries,  have  made  diffi- 
cult at  times  the  action  of  their  respective  Chancel- 
leries, and,  resounding  far  beyond  the  boundaries  of 
the  two  nations,  have  started  to  infuse  into  the  mind 
unfounded  doubts  on  the  possibility  of  compromising 
high  and  permanent  interests  of  two  peoples  closely 
united  by  remarkable  periods  in  their  historical  past, 
during  which  they  have  fulfilled  their  destinies  in  the 
best  harmony. 

Several  of  the  agreements  were  objected  to  in  due 
course  in  the  name  of  my  Government,  to  which  they 
have  appeared  either  incompatible  with  the  regime  of 
legality  to  which  the  above  mentioned  territories  are 
subject,  or  incompatible  with  the  rights  accruing  to 
Chile  by  virtue  of  a  simple  temporary  occupation,  de- 
pendent upon  the  eventualities  of  a  plebiscite. 

Some  of  these  objections  were  formulated  only 
verbally.     My  Government,  decided  to  proceed  in  in- 


181 

ternational  matters  within  the  confines  of  a  well  under- 
stood moderation,  prefers,  when  circumstances  permit, 
to  affirm  its  rights  and  claim  them  in  the  least  vexatious 
form  possible.  My  Government,  moreover,  expected 
that  the  Government  of  Your  Excellency,  convinced  of 
the  inefficacy  of  its  measures,  would  abandon  the  pur- 
pose of  continuing  them  for  an  indefinite  period. 

But  since  time  is  passing,  since  our  negotiations  re- 
main in  statu  quo,  since  the  the  rigor  of  certain  meas- 
ures is  wont  to  be  accentuated  by  the  over-stepping  of 
authority  on  the  part  of  subalterns,  and  since  the  high 
personnel  of  the  offices  of  the  Ministers  has  recently 
undergone  changes,  it  being  therefore  possible  to  incur 
in  the  forgetfulness  of  some  verbal  arrangement,  I 
have  been  directed  by  my  Government  to  address  that 
of  Your  Excellency  in  order  to  state  in  writing  our 
claims  and  to  obtain,  in  a  friendly  manner,  the  corres> 
ponding  solution. 

Among  the  measures  of  greater  importance,  the  clos- 
ing of  the  schools  of  Tacna  and  Arica  governed  by 
Peruvians,  as  well  as  the  refusal  to  grant  to  these  the 
required  permission  to  exercise  their  profession,  are 
conspicuous. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Peru,  in  his 
communication  of  July  10  of  the  current  year  to  the 
Minister  of  Chile  in  Lima,  showed  the  incompatibility 
of  said  measure  with  the  principle  of  freedom  of  educa- 
tion guaranteed  in  its  greatest  amplitude  by  the  funda- 
mental Charter  of  this  Republic  and  the  Chilean  law 
of  November  24,  1860 ;  and  he  deduced,  without  greater 
effort,  that  it  was  in  violation  of  that  which  is  stipulated 
in  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  according  to 
which  the  aforementioned  provinces  do  not  remain  sub- 
ject to  exceptional  proceedings,  but  to  the  regime  es- 
tablished by  Chilean  legislation. 


182 

In  one  of  my  conferences  in  the  month  of  April  with 
the  honorable  predecessor  of  Yonr  Excellency,  Sr. 
Errazuriz  Urmeneta,  I  advanced  this  argument  ver- 
bally and  further  stated  to  him  that  the  Peruvians 
domiciled  in  Tacna  and  Arica  could  not  be  in  worse 
condition  than  that  of  the  foreigners  residing  in  Chile ; 
that  the  doctrine  of  prescinding  from  Chilean  laws  to 
proceed  in  accordance  with  powers  derived  from  in- 
ternational law,  praised  by  the  Attorney-General  of 
the  nation,  as  it  is  publicly  known,  was  equivalent  to 
establishing  the  regime  of  martial  law,  bringing  things 
back  to  the  state  in  which  they  were  on  the  day  follow- 
ing the  military  occupation  and  forgetting  the  exist- 
ence of  a  treaty ;  that  the  abuses  of  the  teachers,  upon 
being  proved,  should  be  punished  in  accordance  with 
the  laws  of  Chile,  but  not  injuring  interests  and  legiti- 
mate rights ;  that,  lastly,  I  was  calling  attention  to  the 
fact  that  only  after  about  twenty  years  had  it  been 
found  necessary  to  correct  in  an  unusual  manner  the 
abuses  of  the  Peruvian  teachers. 

Something  must  now  be  added.  One  of  the  objects 
of  this  and  other  measures  to  which  the  present  com- 
munication refers  has  been,  according  to  the  opinion 
of  authorized  persons  and  the  contents  of  official  docu- 
ments, that  of  swaying  towards  Chile  the  current  of 
opinion  favorable  to  Peru,  endeavoring  to  awaken,  in 
consequence,  in  the  new  generations  sentiments  of  ad- 
herence to  the  first  of  those  countries.  Chile,  accord- 
.  ing  to  this  version,  has  the  right  to  put  into  play  all 
sorts  of  legitimate  influences  to  convert  into  reality  its 
hopes  for  the  acquisition  of  the  territories  of  Tacna 
and  Arica.  "Without  denying  this  right  invoked,  I  must 
observe  that  the  measures  prohibited  by  the  laws  of 
Chile,  by  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  and  by  the  principles 
relative  to  the  freedom  of  education  do  not  belong  to 
the  category  of  influences  qualified  as  legitimate. 


183 

If  the  children  who  are  now  being  educated  and  over 
whom  influence  is  endeavored  to  be  exercised  were 
called  upon  to  take  part  as  voters  in  the  approaching 
plebiscite,  said  measures,  without  being  justified, 
would  have  some  explanation  from  the  practical  point 
of  view ;  but  these  children  cannot,  at  present,  by  rea- 
son of  their  age,  exercise  the  rights  of  suffrage  in  any 
political  order,  either  international  or  internal;  they 
will  hardly  be  able  to  do  so  within  ten  or  twelve  years. 
Will  the  realization  of  the  plebiscite  be  delayed  until 
then  f  And  if  the  spirit  of  the  coming  generation  were 
not  sufficiently  ductil,  as  assuredly  it  will  not  be,  to 
change  the  sense  of  their  patriotic  zeal,  will  the  coming 
of  new  generations  which  offer  prospects  of  better  re- 
sults be  awaited?  Has  Chile  or  Peru  entertained  pre- 
conceived purposes  to  defer  to  so  distant  a  future  the 
realization  of  the  plebiscite! 

Founded  on  recent  and  solemn  declarations  made  by 
the  Heads  of  the  States  in  their  messages  and  by  the 
Chancelleries  of  both  countries  in  their  annual  reports, 
I  may  affirm  that  such  purposes  do  not  exist;  those 
who  maintain  the  opposite  falsify  the  meaning  of  the 
two  Governments. 

The  realization  of  the  plebiscite  is  every  day  more 
imminent  and  urgent ;  such  is  the  declared  will  of  said 
Governments,  tired  of  useless  discussions  which  ex- 
haust the  energy  of  their  people  and  hinder  them  from 
arriving  to  the  so-much  desired  honorable  outcome  of 
their  differences. 

If  there  is  no  will  nor  reason  to  delay  the  plebiscite, 
it  is  useless  to  rest  the  hopes  of  success  on  the  influence 
exercised  upon  the  school-teachers  of  today,  and  it  is 
equally  useless  to  maintain  the  schools  under  an  ex- 
ceptional regime. 

I  must  record  an  antecedent,  favorable  in  itself,  to 
the  claim  of  my  Government.     The  communication  of 


184 

the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Peru  was  not 
answered  in  its  essential  part  by  the  representative  of 
Chile,  Mr.  Vienna,  who  excused  himself  from  discus- 
sing the  fundamental  part  of  it,  alleging,  through  an 
error  of  conception,  that  the  matter  was  being  dis- 
cussed in  Santiago,  when  in  reality  it  was  being  dis- 
cussed in  Lima.  My  Government,  without  accepting 
what  was  asserted,  agreed  to  transfer  the  negotiations 
to  this  capital  and  furnished  me,  consequently,  with 
the  necessary  instructions.  I  then  addressed  myself, 
in  writing,  under  date  of  August  10th  to  the  Minister 
of  Foreign  Affairs,  stating  to  him  that,  according  to 
the  state  of  affairs,  it  behooved  the  Government  of 
Your  Excellency  to  answer  the  communiaction  of  Sr. 
Riva-Aguero.  That  honorable  official  limited  himself, 
in  his  reply,  as  Sr.  Vicuna  had  done,  to  answering  the 
arguments  formulated  in  the  name  of  Peru ;  he  limited 
himself  to  state  to  me,  with  regard  to  the  closing  of  the 
schools:  "my  Government,  as  Your  Excellency  knows, 
is  also  considering  the  question  of  creating  a  definite 
situation  in  regard  to  this  matter ;  and  I  shall  make  it  a 
point  of  duty  to  bring  about  a  prompt  solution,  and  I 
can  assure  Your  Excellency  that  it  will  be  inspired,  in 
any  case,  by  the  sentiments  of  justice  and  true  harmony 
which  must  govern  the  relations  of  two  friendly  and 
neighboring  countries." 

According  to  this,  the  actual  situation  of  the  schools 
is  not  definite ;  it  is  an  abnormal  and  temporary  situa- 
tion, destined  to  be  succeeded  by  another  one  regular 
and  permanent.  Such  declarations,  worthy  of  a  fore- 
sighted  Government,  were  made  to  me  in  the  month  of- 
May  in  a  verbal  form.  At  that  time,  the  Intendant  of 
Tacna,  Sr.  Palacios,  was  called  to  Santiago  with  the 
object,  among  others,  of  obtaining  new  information 
which  would  allow  him  to  adopt  a  conciliatory  and  just 


185 

line  of  conduct.  Sr.  Palacios,  after  remaining  many 
days  in  Santiago,  returned  to  Tacna,  and  no  resolution 
was  adopted,  nor  has  been  adopted,  up  to  the  present 
time,  notwithstanding  that  almost  one  year  has  passed 
since  the  closing  of  the  schools. 

Therefore,  I  must  make  it  clear  that  the  aforemen- 
tioned arguments  in  the  name  of  Peru  in  support  of 
her  claim,  not  having  been  contradicted,  subsist  in  all 
their  vigor;  and  that  there  also  subsists  the  offer  of 
the  Government  of  Your  Excellency  to  replace  the 
temporary  measures  with  definite  ones,  inspired  by 
sentiments  of  harmony  and  justice.  My  Government 
expects  in  the  near  future  the  solution  referred  to, 
which  assuredly  will  consist  in  restoring  to  Peruvians 
the  enjoyment  and  exercise  of  their  rights,  of  which 
they  have  been  deprived,  and  in  annulling  the  regula- 
tions of  exceptions  against  them. 

Permit  me  to  remind  Your  Excellency,  in  this  con- 
nection, that  one  of  the  most  efficacious  means  to  main- 
tain close  bonds  of  solidarity  between  nations,  in  their 
forward  march  along  the  road  of  civilization  and  pro- 
gress, consists  in  endeavoring  to  raise  continually  the 
standard  of  intellectuality  of  their  respective  peoples. 
The  light  of  science,  irradiating  with  the  greatest  pro- 
fusion possible,  from  the  most  humble  schools  or  from 
the  great  centers  of  learning,  will  continue  to  dissi- 
pate in  the  future,  as  it  has  done  in  the  past,  the  errors 
and  prejudices  which  give  rise  to  no  little  dissensions 
between  countries.  With  remarkable  ability,  Bluntschli 
has  declared  in  his  "Codified  International  Law": 
' '  Science  contributes  considerably  to  the  establishment 
of  international  law  and  causes  it  to  be  respected.  It 
is  obliged  to  prepare  its  ulterior  development  and  to 
extend  its  progress.' ' 

To  this  work  of  civilization  and  common  interest,  the 
Peruvian  teachers  have  dedicated  themselves.     Their 


186 

beneficial  task,  without  being  developed  towards  ends 
of  narrow  exclusiveness,  has  been  most  meritorious, 
if  there  is  taken  into  account  the  fact  that  in  some  of 
the  districts  in  which  the  Government  of  Your  Excel- 
lency had  not  found  it  convenient  to  establish  schools, 
they  alone  have  accomplished  during  twenty  years, 
without  omitting  effort  and  sacrifices,  the  noble  mis- 
sion of  imparting  instruction  to  Peruvians  and  others, 
without  distinction  of  nationality.  Because  of  this,  my 
Government,  without  excusing  the  abuses  which  they 
might  have  incurred,  protects  and  defends  their  claims. 

The  Government  of  Your  Excellency  also  found  it 
convenient  to  appoint  a  commission  entrusted  to  re- 
port, after  a  study,  on  the  boundary  line  between  the 
old  Peruvian  departments  of  Tacna  and  Tarapaca,  or, 
more  exactly,  between  Arica  and  Pisagua;  and  in 
taking  this  step,  there  has  not  been  taken  into  account 
the  just  observations  of  my  Government  destined  to 
prevent  possible  and  vexatious  divergencies. 

The  aforementioned  boundary  line  is  formed,  ac- 
cording to  the  Treaty  of  Peace  of  1883,  by  the  ravine 
and  the  River  Camarones ;  it  separates  the  territory  of 
Tarapaca,  whose  dominion  has  been  ceded  to  Chile, 
from  the  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  not  ceded  as 
to  ownership,  and  the  definite  fate  of  which  is  subject 
to  the  contingencies  of  a  plebiscite.  Said  line,  there- 
fore, has  an  international  character. 

Any  misunderstanding  relative  to  its  location  may  be 
solved  by  agreement  of  the  contracting  parties.  Neither 
one  of  them,  in  the  absence  of  the  other,  can  usurp  the 
power  of  marking  out  this  line  or  altering  it  in  accord- 
ance with  its  own  criterion.  In  order  to  dispel  doubts 
which  have  arisen,  it  has  been  necessary  to  solicit  the 
cooperation  of  Peru.  Furthermore,  this  line  separated 
unalterably  for  many  years,  within  territory  exclu- 


187 

sively  Peruvian,  the  same  political  circumscriptions 
whose  boundaries  are  now  endeavored  to  be  defined; 
and  in  this  way  the  actual  province  of  Tarapaca  passed 
to  the  power  of  Chile.  My  Government,  for  this  rea- 
son, is  in  a  very  propitious  position  to  appreciate  with 
certainty  the  origin  and  course  of  it,  which  constitutes 
a  new  and  powerful  reason  not  to  prescind  from  its 
approval. 

The  Chancellery  of  Lima  claimed  this  intervention, 
and  addressed  itself,  in  consequence,  in  a  communica- 
tion dated  January  15th  of  the  current  year  to  the 
Chilean  Charge  d'Aff aires  in  Peru,  who  was  good 
enough  to  answer  in  satisfactory  terms,  although  they 
were  altogether  too  general. 

Upon  proceeding  recently  to  the  fixing  of  the  divid- 
ing line  mentioned,  there  were  sustained  by  several 
secondary  officials  opinions  not  in  conformity  with  that 
established  in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon ;  and,  for  that  rea- 
son, I  addressed  to  that  Department  my  communica- 
tion of  October  8th,  ratifying  the  previous  declarations 
of  the  aforementioned  Chancellery.  I  deemed  it  con- 
venient to  state  in  that  document  that,  even  though  it 
was  endeavored  to  fix  the  boundaries  for  reasons  of 
interior  administration,  it  was  not  possible  to  prescind 
from  the  intervention  of  Peru. 

In  effect,  none  of  those  territories  lying  to  the  north 
of  the  Camarones  Kiver,  over  which  Chile  has  no  defi- 
nite dominion  or  sovereignty,  may  be  subjected,  in 
their  internal  regime,  to  the  same  rules  as  the  terri- 
tories located  to  the  south  of  said  ravine.  There  must 
therefore  be  perfect  conformity  between  the  bound- 
aries which  are  adopted  for  reasons  of  interior  admini- 
stration and  those  already  established  in  the  interna- 
tional order. 

It  is  natural  to  attribute  to  the  last  two  recent 
changes  which  have  taken  place  in  the  personnel  of  the 


188 

Cabinet,  the  fact  that  my  aforementioned  communica- 
tion has  not  been  answered  up  to  date ;  but  having  con- 
fidence in  the  honest  sincerity  of  the  purpose  of  this 
Government,  I  rejoice  in  the  hope  that,  in  any  event, 
when  this  matter  is  solved  the  demarcation  of  the  po- 
litical circumscription  of  Tacna  and  Tarapaca  will  be 
altered.  It  is  my  duty,  meanwhile,  to  call  the  attention 
of  Your  Excellency,  as  I  shall  later  do,  to  the  irregular 
proceeding  in  this  matter,  which  undoubtedly  will  be 
corrected. 

By  supreme  decrees  of  November  3,  1885,  and 
August  28,  1888,  several  villages  were  incorporated  in 
the  Chilean  department  of  Pisagua,  which,  under  the 
Peruvian  regime,  according  to  the  law  in  force,  be- 
longed to  the  district  of  Codpa  in  the  province  of 
Arica.  Having  segregated  these  villages  from  the  ter- 
ritory over  which  Chile  does  not  exercise  definite 
sovereignty,  they  have  been  included  in  those  over 
which  it  exercises  complete  dominion. 

The  irregularity  of  this  measure,  to  say  the  least, 
is  supported  by  the  Chilean  authorities  of  those  re- 
gions themselves,  as  well  as  by  the  Governor  of  Arica, 
Sr.  Montt,  and  the  Intendant  of  Tacna,  Sr.  Palacios. 
The  former,  in  a  report  of  March  15th  last,  referring 
to  the  well-known  petition  of  Sr.  David  Mac  Tver,  con- 
tends, among  other  things :  that  the  boundary  between 
Arica  and  Pisagua  is  fixed  by  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  the 
Peruvian  law  of  December  1,  1868,  by  virtue  of  which 
the  littoral  province  of  Tarapaca  was  created,  sepa- 
rating it  from  the  department  of  Moquegua,  and  by 
the  Chilean  law  relative  to  the  establishment  of  the 
provinces  of  Tacna  and  Tarapaca;  that  within  said 
ravine  there  exist  many  villages:  that  those  situated 
to  the  north  of  the  bed  of  the  River  Camarones  always 
belonged  to  Arica,  and  those  located  to  the  south  of 


189 

that  river  belonged  to  Pisagua;  that  this  legal  situa- 
tion was  modified  by  the  decrees  of  the  Executive 
before  referred  to,  by  virtue  of  which  there  were 
taken  from  Arica  and  incorporated  in  Pisagua  the 
villages  of  Guancarane,  Pachica  and  Esquina;  that 
these  decrees  are  opposed  to  the  laws  creating  the 
provinces  of  Tacna  and  Tarapaca,  in  Article  37,  Part 
5  of  the  Constitution  of  the  country  and  to  that  stipu- 
lated in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon. 

The  Intendant  Palacios,  confirms  the  report  in  the 
most  expressive  manner  and  states : 

"By  virtue  of  the  study  the  undersigned  has 
made  of  the  atlas  of  Paz  Soldan,  referred  to  by 
the  petitioner;  by  means  of  information  received 
from  persons  well  acquainted  with  these  locali- 
ties; by  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  laws  estab- 
lishing the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Tarapaca,  as 
well  as  the  supreme  decrees  which  mark  the  ter- 
ritorial comprisals,  I  am  convinced  that  the  Gov- 
ernor of  Arica,  in  his  conclusions,  is  in  the  right 
on  a  well  founded  and  well  proven  basis. ' ' 

The  least  alteration  in  the  boundary  line  marked 
out  by  the  Treaty  of  Peace  must  be  avoided,  as  is 
shown,  and  for  identical  reasons  it  is  advisable  to 
leave  without  effect  the  above-mentioned  decrees  of 
1885  and  1888,  in  that  part  which  refers  to  the  villages 
segregated  from  Arica.  In  any  case,  Peru  is  not  rec- 
ognizing the  effects  of  any  measure  by  which  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  territory  may  be  impaired,  the  definite 
fate  of  which  is  subject  to  a  plebiscitary  voting. 

I  am  commissioned  also  to  call  the  attention  of  Your 
Excellency  to  the  concessions  of  beds  of  borates  and 
other  substances  made  to  private  enterprises  in  the 
territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica  and  to  the  announced 
project  of  ceding  guano-beds  and  of  giving  nitrate  de- 
posits by  means  of  a  lease  or  sale. 


190 

Such  concessions,  in  view  of  their  object,  can  be 
granted  only  by  the  owner  of  the  territory,  by  the  one 
who  exercises  a  permanent  and  absolute  sovereignty; 
by  the  owner  who  has  the  power  to  dispose  of  the  soil 
and  its  wealth.  To  simple  occupants,  as  Chile  is  in 
this  case,  the  right  to  act  as  complete  master  is  not 
given,  nor  is  the  right  to  compromise  the  territory  for 
the  future  which  does  not  belong  to  them  accrue  to 
them.  Immediately  after  having  signed  the  Treaty  of 
Peace,  it  could  have  made  temporary  concessions  of 
a  certain  order  which  would  not  amount  to  the  aliena- 
tion of  the  soil;  then,  there  was  assured  Chile  the  ex- 
ercise of  a  limited  dominion  for  ten  years ;  but  today, 
the  subsistence  of  her  authority  subject  to  the  con- 
tingencies of  a  plebiscite  of  early  realization,  the  con- 
cessions of  dominion  cannot  be  explained,  and  in  no 
case  can  they  extend  their  effects  beyond  the  time  of 
occupation. 

The  spirit  of  the  considerations  above  explained  is 
founded  on  the  mining  legislation  of  modern  peoples. 
According  to  the  Mining  Code  of  Chile  the  State,  as 
owner  of  the  land,  is  also  owner  of  all  the  mines,  and 
founded  on  this  title,  it  grants  to  private  individuals 
the  perpetual  ownership  of  them,  on  the  condition  of 
paying  a  certain  amount  annually.  But  with  regard 
to  Tacna  and  Arica,  over  the  soil  and  mineral  wealth 
of  which  Chile  has  no  perfect  dominion,  she  cannot  in 
any  way  transmit  the  perpetual  ownership  of  the 
mines. 

In  1892,  the  Government  of  Your  Excellency  was  on 
the  point  of  entering  into  a  contract  with  the  concern 
of  Firth  &  Co.,  for  the  purpose  of  extending  the  rail- 
road of  Tacna.  As  the  concession,,  according  to  the 
project  of  the  law  referring  to  it,  was  to  extend  much 
beyond  the  month  of  March,  1894,  the  Charge  d'Af- 


191 

f aires  of  Peru,  saw  fit  to  object  to  it.  In  a  communi- 
cation dated  December*  10,  1892,  addressed  to  the 
Chancellery  of  Santiago,  he  formulated  this  declara- 
tion : 

a*  *  *Tjle  peruvian  provinces  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  being  only  temporarily  occupied,  my  Gov- 
ernment does  not  consider  it  in  accordance  to  law 
for  Chile  to  enter  into  contracts  or  to  dictate  dis- 
positions whose  effects  may  extend  to  a  period 
beyond  that  indicated  for  the  occupation  in  the 
Treaty  of  Peace  of  1883.' ' 

This  same  declaration  is  hereby  renewed,  in  so  far 
as  is  applicable  to  the  concessions  of  mineral  owner- 
ship. 

It  has  also  been  endeavored,  and  it  is  still  being 
endeavored,  to  carry  to  an  end  in  Tacna  and  Arica 
projects  of  colonization  and  immigration.  On  August 
31,  1899,  one  of  the  honorable  predecessors  of  Your 
Excellency  recommended  in  writing  to  the  Inspector 
General  of  Lands  and  Colonization,  a  serious  study 
of  the  possibility  of  establishing  national  colonies  and 
of  extending  and  improving  means  of  irrigation.  To- 
day, references  are  made  to  new  initiatives  on  the  part 
of  the  Delegate  in  Tacna,  Sr.  Guerrero  Bascunau,  and 
there  is  considered  as  probable  the  investment  of  a 
respectable  sum  of  money  in  enterprises  of  this  kind 
in  the  valleys  of  Tacna,  Lluta,  Vitor  and  Azapa. 

Colonization,  according  to  means  provided  for  by 
laws,  decrees  and  contracts  sanctioned  in  Chile,  rests, 
as  in  every  country  anxious  to  be  populated,  on  the 
basis  of  granting  the  colonists  lands  under  an  owner- 
ship title,  either  a  gratuitous  or  an  onerous  one,  with 
a  long  term  for  payment ;  in  both  cases,  there  is  alien- 
ation of  land.  "With  this  spirit,  there  were  enacted 
the  laws  of  December  4,  1866,  and  of  August  4,  1874, 


192 

the  supreme  decrees  of  December  28,  1889,  regulation 
of  the  Office  of  Lands  and  Colonization,  and  of  Sep- 
tember 10,  1899 ;  and  obeying  the  same  purpose,  a  con- 
tract of  colonization  was  celebrated  with  Mr.  Charles 
Colson  on  February  14,  1896,  and  approved  by  law  of 
December  22,  1899. 

Therefore,  the  sale  of  these  public  lands,  the  funda- 
mental basis  of  a  great  enterprise  of  colonization, — a 
powerful  inducement  to  form  stable  populations, — can 
only  be  effected  by  the  owner  and  sovereign  of  the 
land,  but  not  by  Chile,  a  simple  occupant  thereof.  In 
the  international  order,  as  well  as  in  the  civil  order, 
only  the  owner  has  the  right  to  use,  enjoy  and  dispose 
of  things.  The  simple  .possessor,  in  whose  title  it  is 
stated  that  full  and  definite  dominion  is  not  to  be  trans- 
ferred, is  in  reality,  in  the  most  favorable  event,  but  a 
mere  usufructuary;  and  if  as  such,  the  rights  to  use 
and  to  enjoy  may  be  exercised,  under  no  circumstances, 
falls  the  right  of  disposal. 

The  great  projects  of  colonization  affects  the  future 
more  than  the  present ;  they  may  modify  the  industrial 
and  ethnologic  organization  of  the  people  and  alter 
their  moral  physiognomy.  Said  projects  are  improper 
to  the  limited  action  of  a  temporary  regime,  the  con- 
ductors of  which  have  no  certainty  as  to  the  duration 
of  their  authority.  It  seems  more  natural  to  reserve 
them  to  the  nation  which  may  acquire,  through  the 
measures  provided  for  in  the  pacts  in  force,  the  defi- 
nite dominion  and  sovereignty  over  the  territories  in 
question.  My  Government  reserves  itself  to  under- 
taking enterprises  destined  to  improve  the  condition 
of  these  regions,  if,  as  it  fundamentally  hopes,  they 
are  reincorporated  to  Peru  by  virtue  of  the  plebiscite ; 
but  it  is  not  disposed  to  recognize  obligations  and  re- 
sponsibilities derived  from  the  alienation  or  long-term 
renting  of  public  lands,  that  may  now  be  effected. 


193 

Another  of  the  measures  adopted  has  consisted  in 
transferring  to  Tacna  the  seat  of  the  First  Military 
Zone  and  the  consequent  concentration  of  troops  in 
that  locality.  My  Government  does  not  wish  to  discuss 
the  constitutional  power  of  the  President  of  the  Ke- 
public  to  dispose,  to  organize  and  to  distribute  the 
armed  forces  as  he  may  see  fit;  but,  without  ignoring 
it  in  the  least,  it  considers  that  there  are  reasons 
meriting  attention,  in  the  field  of  conveniences,  at 
least,  opposed  to  the  proceeding  above  indicated. 

In  July  of  1885,  the  territory  of  the  Republic  was 
divided  into  three  military  zones,  and  it  was  resolved 
that  the  first  zone  would  have  as  its  military  center 
the  city  of  Iquique.  In  January  of  1896,  a  decree  was 
enacted  regulating  the  zones,  Tacna  being  expressly 
considered  as  an  integral  part  of  the  zone  and 
Iquique  was  retained  as  the  military  seat  thereof.  In 
May  of  the  same  year,  there  was  fixed  the  proportion 
in  which  the  units  of  the  army  were  to  be  distributed, 
and  there  was  ordered,  in  connection  with  the  first 
zone,  the  stationing  in  Iquique  of  a  regiment  of 
cavalry,  and  a  battalion  of  infantry,  the  stationing  in 
Antofagasta  of  a  battalion  of  infantry,  and  the  placing 
in  Copiapo  of  a  regiment  of  artillery.  It  was  not 
deemed  advisable  to  maintain  any  force  of  importance 
in  the  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

Four  year  later,  without  anything  demanding  the 
presence  in  said  places  of  a  numerous  army,  this  dis- 
tribution was  altered  and  there  was  transferred  to 
Tacna  the  staff  of  the  first  zone,  without  taking  into 
account  the  central  location  of  Iquique,  its  great  ad- 
vantages as  a  commercial  city  and  its  resources.  Such 
a  measure,  of  a  character  essentially  military,  was  ac- 
centuated in  April  with  the  order  transferring  to 
Arica  the  ironclad  Almirante  Cochrane  and  the  tor- 


194 

pedo  boat  Ingeniero  Mutilla,  on  which  are  located  the 
artillery  and  torpedo  schools. 

Even  though  the  River  Sama,  located  to  the  south  of 
those  territories,  was  the  definite  boundary  between 
Chile  and  Peru,  the  concentration  of  forces  in  Tacna 
could  not  be  explained.  Much  less  can  it  be  explained 
if  it  be  considered  that  it  is  only  a  provisional  bound- 
ary whose  safety  has  not  been  threatened,  not  even  re- 
motely, either  previously  or  now. 

The  laws  of  the  countries  whose  political  institu- 
tions are  based  on  liberal  and  democratic  principles, 
prohibit,  out  of  respect  of  free  suffrage,  the  concentra- 
tion of  military  forces  at  the  time  of  elections  at  the 
places  where  they  are  to  take  place.  Is  not  the  obser- 
vation of  this  same  rule  fitting  in  the  international 
order  if  it  be  necessary  to  appeal  to  the  free  vote  of 
the  people?  If  for  internal  effects,  the  presence  of 
public  forces  in  the  circumstances  above  mentioned  is 
reputed  dangerous,  cannot  this  be  applied  also  for  the 
good  effects  of  the  exterior  policy?  According  to  that, 
there  cannot  be  denied  the  advisability  of  reducing  the 
forces  existing  in  Tacna  and  Arica  to  a  number  indis- 
pensable for  maintaining  order  and  public  safety,  as 
has  happened  without  any  inconvenience  for  about 
twenty  years. 

With  this  reduction,  the  misgivings  of  the  occupying 
people  will  be  allayed;  difficulties,  excitements  and 
personal  disagreements,  always  very  lamentable  and 
vexatious,  will  be  avoided,  and  the  Government  of 
Your  Excellency  will  save  expenses  and  lasting  instal- 
lations, which  are  but  little  in  harmony  with  temporary 
character  of  the  occupation. 

New  consideration  has  been  given  also  to  the  old 
project  destined  to  render  independent  the  ecclesiastic 
service  of  Tacna  from  the  Diocese  of  Arequipa,  estab- 


195 

lishing  to  that  effect  an  apostolic  vicarage.  The  Holy 
See,  which  would  have  to  be  consulted  in  this  case,  will 
not  assuredly  consent  to  second  it,  informed  as  it  now 
is  that  Chile  does  not  exercise  definite  dominion  and 
sovereignty  over  those  territories.  It  is  advisable, 
however,  to  leave  a  well  founded  record  of  the  way  of 
thinking  of  my  Government.  In  Peru,  as  in  Chile,  the 
Catholic  Church  lives  and  develops  under  the  pro- 
tection of  the  secular  regime  of  patronage.  In  accord- 
ance thereto,  the  civil  governments,  in  the  territorial 
circumscriptions  permanently  subject  to  their  domin- 
ion, intervene  in  the  establishment  and  dissolution  of 
dioceses  and  parishes,  in  creating  vicarages,  apostolic 
or  otherwise,  in  the  provision  of  ecclesiastical  benefits 
and  in  other  functions  closely  connected  to  the  tempo- 
ral mission  of  the  States. 

Patronage,  moreover,  whatever  be  the  source  from 
which  it  is  derived,  is  an  attribute  closely  united  to  the 
exercise  of  national  sovereignty.  Its  action  over  cer- 
tain churches  subsisting  while  sovereignty  lasts  over 
the  territories  in  which  they  function,  is  transferred 
only  when  the  sovereignty  is  absolute  and  permanent. 
With  regard  to  Tacna  and  Arica,  neither  has  Peru 
ceded  nor  Chile  acquired  the  definite  dominion  and 
sovereignty ;  the  time  has  not  arrived  therefore  to  sup- 
pose extinguished  on  the  part  of  Peru  the  functions  of 
patronage  in  connection  with  those  churches. 

The  inconveniences  arising  from  the  continuation  of 
the  present  state  of  things,  on  the  other  hand,  are  not 
felt ;  there  have  been  no  inconveniences  during  the  last 
twenty  years  and  there  will  be  none  in  the  future.  In 
any  event,  is  it  worth  while  to  change  this  regime  for 
another  of  brief  duration,  if,  as  it  is  generally  sup- 
posed, the  plebiscite  proves  favorable  to  Peru? 

Some  will  not  fail  to  support  this  measure,  because 


196 

they  believe  it  is  destined  to  put  into  play  the  means 
of  religion  to  direct  the  consciences  along  the  road  of 
determinate  solutions.  But  I  am  sure  that  this  does 
not  form  part  of  the  intentions  which  inspire  the  inter- 
national policy  of  your  Government.  To  its  illustri- 
ousness  the  fact  is  not  concealed  that  since  the  expira- 
tion of  the  Holy  Alliance,  which  pretended  to  make  of 
Christianity  an  instrument  of  rivalry  between  coun- 
tries, and,  if  religion  is  sometimes  taken  into  account 
by  international  law,  it  is  in  order  to  strengthen  and 
not  to  weaken  the  bonds  of  confraternity  between 
peoples. 

Neither  may  I  remain  silent,  according  to  the  in- 
structions of  my  Government,  as  to  the  orders  of  the 
subordinate  authorities  of  Tacna  and  Arica  who  ren- 
dered difficult  or  prevented  on  July  28th,  the  anni- 
versary of  the  independence  of  Peru,  the  natural  mani- 
festations of  patriotic  joy  on  the  part  of  Peruvian  na- 
tionals as,  notwithstanding  that  this  was  in  connection 
with  the  date  glorious  for  all  nations,  which,  by  action 
of  united  efforts,  were  raised  to  independent  life  at  the 
beginning  of  the  present  century. 

I  am  happy  to  declare  that  when  I  denounced  such 
unbelievable  conduct  to  the  then  Minister  of  the  In- 
terior and  Foreign  Affairs,  this  official  ordered  on  two 
consecutive  occasions,  by  telegraph,  that  the  commem- 
oration of  the  aforementioned  anniversary  be  per- 
mitted. Unfortunately,  this  order  was  not  duly  re- 
spected, and  my  compatriots,  feeling  unjustly  and  vex- 
atiously  hostilized,  refrained  from  fulfilling  one  of  the 
most  sacred  duties  of  patriotism.  I  must  also  state 
that  part  of  the  Chilean  press,  seconded  by  persons 
who  looked  into  the  future  with  penetrating  vision, 
strongly  censored  the  conduct  of  said  authorities  and 
asked  the  Government  to  take  measures  of  just  repara- 
tion, wThich  I  assume  will  be  done. 


197 

There  may  be  added  as  reasons  for  the  just  resent- 
ment and  alarm  among  the  populations  of  Tacna  and 
Arica,  the  badly  covered  hostility  directed  against  the 
Peruvian  elements  on  the  part  of  the  above  mentioned 
subordinate  officials;  as  well  as  their  ardor  and  per- 
sistence, ineffective  up  to  the  present  time  in  endeavor- 
ing to  induce  the  Government  of  Your  Excellency  to 
undertake  the  liberticide  enterprise  of  stilling,  with 
measures  of  violence,  the  voice  of  the  press  of  those 
regions. 

If  to  what  has  been  stated  are  added  the  moving  to 
Tacna  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  Iquique ;  the  project 
reduction  of  the  import  duties  through  the  custom- 
house of  Arica ;  the  declarations  of  the  honorable  rep- 
resentative of  Chile  in  Bolivia  relative  to  the  purposes 
of  this  nation  with  regard  to  Tacna  and  Arica ;  the  pro- 
longed and  undue  occupation  of  a  part  of  the  Peruvian 
province  of  Tarata,  and  the  indefinite  delay  of  the  ple- 
biscite, it  may  be  seen  that,  independent  of  the  irregu- 
lar action  of  the  subordinate  authorities,  there  seems 
to  predominate  the  purpose  of  subtracting  from  the 
rule  of  common  legislation  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  in  order  to  subject  them  to  an  exceptional 
regime. 

In  the  opinion  of  some,  Chile  must  employ  these 
measures  in  order  to  secure  a  favorable  decision  with 
regard  to  the  plebiscite,  because  of  the  nitrate  deposits 
existing  in  said  provinces.  Already  in  1898  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Your  Excellency  obtained  from  Peru,  in 
case  the  voting  would  be  favorable,  the  generous  com- 
promise of  not  exploiting  the  nitrate  except  under  fis- 
cal conditions,  analogous  to  those  in  force  in  Chilean 
territory;  but  my  Government  refused  to  agree  to  a 
subsequent  application  of  the  Government  of  Your  Ex- 
cellency  to    obtain   the   protocolized   promise  of  not 


198 

adopting  any  measures  with  regard  to  the  exploitation 
or  transference  of  the  dominion  of  the  deposits,  with 
which  the  monopoly  of  Chile  might  be  impaired.. 

The  Chancellery  of  Lima  explained  on  this  occasion 
that  the  matter  was  outside  the  stipulations  destined 
to  give  fulfillment  to  the  Treaty  of  Ancon;  that  the 
principle  of  unconditional  sovereignty  over  those  ter- 
ritories could  not  be  sacrificed  under  any  considera- 
tion; that  the  admission  of  such  a  doctrine  would  con- 
stitute an  unfavorable  precedent  for  the  rest  of  the 
Peruvian  territories  in  which  nitrate  deposits  might  be 
discovered;  and  that,  finally,  there  existed  no  nitrate 
deposits  susceptible  to  industrial  exploitation. 

Today,  we  see  with  satisfaction  that  the  intentions 
of  Your  Excellency  did  not  have  the  exaggerated  scope 
of  an  invitable  condition.  In  effect,  the  Chilean  Chan- 
cellery, in  an  implicit  manner,  and  important  centers 
of  opinion  in  an  expressed  manner,  have  just  disap- 
proved the  opinion  of  one  of  its  distinguished  diplo- 
mats who,  referring  to  the  Bolivian  littoral,  had 
stated:  that  the  coast  is  rich  and  is  worth  many  mil- 
lions, which  we  already  knew.  We  keep  it  because  it 
is  worth  something,  that  if  it  were  worth  nothing, 
there  would  be  no  interest  in  its  preservation.  It  is 
not,  therefore,  the  value  of  the  territories,  according 
to  the  sane  criterion  of  the  Government  of  Your  Ex- 
cellency, which  must  be  resolved,  in  itself  alone,  the 
international  questions  pending,  but  the  strict  fulfill- 
ment of  the  treaties  celebrated. 

It  has  also  been  stated  that  Chile  must  keep  these 
territories  in  view  of  the  safety  of  her  frontiers,  not 
sufficiently  defended  if  the  definite  boundary  were  fixed 
at  the  ravine  of  Camarones;  and  that  she  could  not, 
therefore,  fail  to  follow  the  course  which  she  herself 
has  recently  traced. 


199 

Although  I  do  not  believe  that  this  opinion  will  be 
shared  by  the  high  counsels  of  the  Government  of  Your 
Excellency,  I  must  record  that  there  is  opposed  to  it 
the  very  important  one  of  Sr.  Boonen  Rivera,  who,  re- 
ferring to  a  report  on  the  above-mentioned  ravine,  has 
stated : 

"Because  of  its  central  position  with  regard  to 
the  other  valleys,  and  because  of  the  great  dis- 
tance which  separates  them  from  the  other  neigh- 
boring valleys,  it  constitutes  a  bulwark  which, 
strongly  occupied,  could  completely  defend  the 
province  of  Tarapaca  from  any  invasion  by  land." 

The  lack  of  safety,  moreover,  cannot  in  itself  serve 
as  a  reason  or  pretext  to  claim  dominion  over  the  terri- 
tories of  others.  Sr.  Andres  Bello,  the  object  of  well 
deserved  respect,  commenting  more  than  half  a  cen- 
tury ago  on  the  dangers  of  such  a  theory,  states  in  his 
"Principles  of  International  Law": 

"States  are  wont  to  make  use  of  various  pre- 
texts to  seize  the  territory  of  others ;  the  ordinary 
and  most  usual  is  that  of  its  own  safety  which  is 
in  danger,  as  they  say,  if  these  or  those  natural 
boundaries,  which  would  protect  them  against  for- 
eign invasion,  are  not  taken.  But  to  grant  peoples 
such  an  indefinite  right  would  be  the  same  as  to 
authorize  them  to  rob  themselves  arbitrarily,  and 
•  instead  of  cementing  peace,  no  rule  could  be  more 
fecund  of  discords  and  wars." 

There  can  not  be  concealed  from  Your  Excellency, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  contrary  effect  of  the  largest 
number  of  the  aforementioned  measures,  especially 
that  of  the  exaggerated  severity  with  which  the  sub- 
ordinate officials  comply  with  them.  There  are  feel- 
ings which  are  strengthened  by  adversity,  which  take 


200 

new  life  and  gigantic  growth  by  struggles,  which  are 
enlivened  by  the  least  appearance  of  compulsion;  one 
of  them  is  patriotic  sentiment.  Thus  is  explained  why, 
at  the  present  time,  among  the  population  of  Tacna 
and  Arica  there  is  as  strong  or  even  a  stronger  deci- 
sion than  formerly  in  favor  of  the  Peruvian  Father- 
land. When  the  Treaty  of  Peace  was  signed,  it  was 
not  thought  that  Chile  remained  authorized  to  put  into 
play  her  influences  with  the  object  of  winning  the  votes 
of  the  population  of  Tacna  and  Arica  for  a  longer 
period  than  ten  years,  and  much  less  for  an  indefinite 
period  of  time.  Within  a  decade,  Chile,  could  do  what- 
ever has  been  within  the  sphere  of  her  rights  in  order 
to  secure  the  indicated  object ;  but  the  period  once  ter- 
minated, the  broad  scope  of  the  powers  exercised  by  it 
has  no  plausible  explanation.  The  Treaty  of  Ancon, 
it  is  true,  submitted  to  an  experiment  the  aforemen- 
tioned provinces,  but  within  a  fixed  period,  which  ter- 
minated March  28, 1894 ;  and  there  is  no  reason  to  pro- 
long this  experiment,  much  less  with  the  rigor  now 
being  displayed,  for  an  indefinite  period.  The  ac- 
ceptance of  an  indefinite  extension  would  be  equiva- 
lent to  admitting  that  the  plebiscite  should  be  realized 
only,  when  Chile  had  obtained  the  complete  assurance 
of  the  favorable  realization  of  her  aspirations,  in  which 
case  the  term  fixed  beforehand  would  have  served  no 
purpose. 

In  1894,  when  the  Chilean  Chancellery  was  in  the 
care  of  the  Honorable  Sr.  Sanchez  Fontecilla,  the 
Government  of  Your  Excellency  solicited  from  that  of 
Peru  an  extension  of  the  period  of  occupation  of  Tacna 
and  Arica  until  March  28,  1898.  This  petition,  in  it- 
self, shows  that  even  in  the  conception  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  Your  Excellency,  the  approval  of  Peru  was 
necessary  in  order  to  continue  exercising  authority  in 


201 

those  territories,  after  1894,  in  a  form  altogether  legit- 
imate. 

One  of  the  easiest  means  to  bring  about  a  quick  and 
friendly  settlement  of  these  lamentable  differences  con- 
sists in  holding  the  plebiscite  at  once,  in  the  form 
agreed  to  in  the  Billinghurst-Latorre  Protocol.  Thus 
would  cease  the  provisional  situation  of  Tacna  and 
Arica,  the  source  of  the  difficulties  and  differences  be- 
tween our  two  countries.  Without  practical  effect, 
the  series  of  attempts  made  by  Peru  since  1892  up  to 
the  present  time  for  the  arrangement  of  this  funda- 
mental matter,  Chile  not  having  disapproved  the  pro- 
tocol above  indicated  and  nothing  new  having  been 
proposed  since  April,  1898,  in  which  month  this  one 
was  celebrated,  its  definite  sanction  imposes  itself  as 
the  best  means  to  arrive  at  the  conclusion  of  this  long 
period  of  disagreements  and  anxieties,  which  obstructs 
the  regular  development  of  both  nations. 

In  any  event,  but  especially  if  the  protocol  is  re- 
fused or  if  the  pending  solution  with  regard  to  it  is 
delayed,  my  Government  is  confident  that  out  of  re- 
spect for  the  good  harmony  of  our  respective  countries, 
in  honor  of  the  laws  under  the  guarantee  of  which  the 
territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica  are  placed,  and  in  ful- 
fillment of  what  was  provided  in  the  Treaty  of  1883, 
there  will  be  reestablished  the  lawful  regime  in  those 
territories,  leaving  without  effect  the  measures  con- 
trary to  it  and  without  enforcement  the  projects  which 
would  tend  to  disturb  it. 

I  am  sure  that  the  Government  of  Your  Excellency 
has  proceeded  in  accordance  with  sincere  convictions 
and  high  purposes.  On  this  account,  I  have  faith  that, 
avoiding  any  error,  thanks  to  the  considerations  above 
set  forth,  it  will  make  amends,  acceding  to  the  sugges- 
tions of  its  own  rectitude.    Actions  have  taken  a  cer- 


202 

tain  course  due  perhaps  to  the  impulses  of  an  exag- 
gerated patriotic  zeal ;  but  once  the  excitement  of  such 
a  respectable  feeling  is  calmed,  I  have  no  doubt  that 
justice  will  be  given  to  the  friendly  demand  of  Peru. 

I  take  pleasure  in  offering  to  Your  Excellency  on  this 
new  occasion  the  sentiments  of  my  high  and  distin- 
guished consideration. 

Cesakeo  Chacaltana. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Chile. 


Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs  of  Chile. 

No.  32.  [Translation] 

Legation  of  Peku  in  Chile, 

Santiago,  December  15,  1900. 
Me.  Minister: 

Under  date  of  November  14,  last,  I  had  the  pleasure 
to  address  to  Your  Excellency  a  communication  des- 
tined to  make  evident  the  unjustifiableness  and  in- 
advisability  of  the  series  of  measures  of  transcendent 
character  recently  adopted,  or  in  process  of  being 
adopted,  on  the  political  and  administrative  regime 
of  the  Peruvian  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  notwith- 
standing that  they  are  subject  only  to  the  precarious 
and  temporary  jurisdiction  of  Chile,  which  should  have 
ceased  in  March,  1894.  As  was  natural,  I  concluded 
by  asking  Your  Excellency,  out  of  respect  for  justice, 
for  the  promises  in  force  between  our  countries,  for 
the  principles  of  international  law  and  for  the  precepts 
of  Chilean  legislation  itself,  to  abrogate  those  meas- 
ures and  to  abandon  the  plans  destined  to  carry  them 
out. 


203 

A  month  has  passed,  and  Your  Excellency  has  not 
favored  me  with  an  answer.  Neither  has  Your  Ex- 
cellency answered  my  communications  of  previous  and 
subsequent  dates  relative  to  the  projected  fixing  of 
boundaries  between  Arica  and  Pisagua,  with  regard 
to  which  there  is  evidenced  by  certain  persons  an  un- 
usual desire  to  induce  the  Government  of  Your  Ex- 
cellency to  act  against  the  territorial  integrity  of 
Arica,  with  the  exclusive  object  of  depriving  this  ter- 
ritory of  a  large  part  of  its  natural  wealth,  in  order 
to  incorporate  it  to  the  now  Chilean  district  of  Pisagua. 

The  prolonged  silence  of  Your  Excellency  would  be 
considered  as  the  assent  of  the  Government  of  Chile 
to  the  just  demands  of  my  Government,  if  it  had  agreed 
with  the  adoption  of  reparation  agreements,  with  the 
reestablishment  of  the  nationality  in  the  regime  at 
present  in  force  in  the  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica, 
and  with  the  clear  purpose  of  leading  both  countries 
to  the  immediate  realization  of  the  plebiscite  agreed 
to  in  the  Treaty  of  Peace  of  1883,  with  which  object 
the  Billinghurst-Latorre  Protocol  was  prepared. 

But  under  the  protection  of  this  silence,  the  initial 
impulse  of  the  measures  above  referred  to  has  not  been 
only  continued  in  all  its  vigor,  but  there  is  intended, 
apparently,  the  immediate  adoption  of  new  measures. 
Thus,  the  daily  papers  have  announced  the  early  in- 
vestment of  about  eighty  thousand  pesos  in  the  con- 
struction in  Tacna  of  a  building  for  the  courts  and  the 
offices  of  the  Intendancy,  and  of  more  than  fourteen 
thousand  pesos  in  the  city  supply  water.  This  re- 
veals the  purpose,  on  the  part  of  Chile,  still  to  pro- 
long, for  an  indefinite  period,  and  as  it  has  prolonged 
in  fact  for  nearly  seven  years,  an  occupation  which 
legally  terminated  in  1894. 

Since  this  is  in  connection  with  delicate  matters, 
which  are  vexatious  and  susceptible  of  leading  to  the 


204 

most  serious  misunderstandings,  this  Legation  has  en- 
deavored to  set  forth  as  many  arguments  as  possible 
to  support  the  claims  which  it  has  formulated,  and  a 
reply  in  accordance  therewith  has  been  expected. 

Not  having  received  this  reply  in  any  sense  up  to 
the  present  time,  and  there  being  prolonged,  mean- 
while, a  situation  prejudicial  to  the  valuable  and  sacred 
interests  which  my  Government  has  the  duty  of 
helping  and  protecting,  I  address  myself  to  Your  Ex- 
cellency with  the  object  of  requesting  Your  Excellency 
to  be  good  enough  to  reply  to  my  aforementioned 
communications,  either  acceding  to  the  just  demands 
which  I  have  formulated  or  making  manifest  the  rea- 
sons which  the  Government  of  Chile  may  have  to  per- 
mit to  continue  in  force  the  measures  to  which  the  de- 
mands refer. 

I  have  the  honor  to  reiterate  to  Your  Excellency  the 
sentiments  of  my  highest  and  most  profound  consid- 
eration. 

Cesareo  Chacaltana. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Chile. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile  to  Minister  of 
Peru  in  Chile. 

[Translation.] 
(No.  1153.) 

Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs, 

Santiago,  December  18,  1900. 
Mr.  Minister: 

I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  the  note 
of  Your  Excellency  dated  the  15th  instant,  in  which 
Your  Excellency  requests  this  department  to  reply  to 


205 

your  previous  communication  of  November  14th,  con- 
taining extensive  observations  on  several  measures 
adopted  by  the  Government  of  Chile  in  the  territories 
of  Tacna  and  Arica,  and  to  the  notes  of  Your  Excel- 
lency previous  and  subsequent  to  November  14th,  rela- 
tive to  the  projected  fixing  of  boundaries  between  the 
departments  of  Arica  and  Pisagua. 

It  has  been  far  from  the  intention  of  the  undersigned 
deliberately  to  delay  his  reply  to  the  above-mentioned 
notes  of  Your  Excellency,  or  much  less  to  incur  the 
discourtesy  of  leaving  them  unanswered. 

Your  Excellency  knows  that  the  Government  for 
some  time  has  been  passing  through  circumstances 
somewhat  abnormal  owing  to  the  almost  constant  ab- 
sence from  the  capital  of  His  Excellency  the  President 
of  the  Eepublic  and  the  frequent  changes  which  the 
personnel  of  the  Cabinet  has  suffered. 

Your  Excellency  also  knows  that  on  the  dates  on 
which  Your  Excellency  addressed  your  aforementioned 
communications,  either  the  Cabinet  was  in  a  period  of 
crisis  or  the  undersigned  had  been  for  only  a  few  days 
in  charge  of  the  portfolio  of  Foreign  Affairs. 

Lastly,  Your  Excellency  is  not  ignorant  of  the  fact 
that  more  than  ten  days  ago  the  members  of  the  pres- 
ent Cabinet  presented  their  resignations,  and  since 
that  date  they  have  been  able  to  attend  only  to  the 
urgent  and  daily  business  of  their  respective  depart- 
ments. 

In  these  circumstances,  which  the  Government  has 
not  been  able  to  avoid  or  correct,  Your  Excellency  will 
find  the  true  and  only  explanation  for  the  lack  of  reply 
which  Your  Excellency  notes  and  which  the  under- 
signed also  deplores. 

Even  though  it  would  not  have  been  an  easy  task  to 
explain  to  Your  Excellency  the  reasons  which  justified 


206 

and  advised  the  adoption  of  the  measures  of  an  ad- 
ministrative character  taken  by  the  Government  in  the 
departments  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  subject  to  the  legal 
and  administrative  dispositions  that  rule  in  the  other 
departments  of  the  Kepublic,  this  department  has  not 
wished  to  proceed  without  making  beforehand  a  care- 
ful study  of  each  one  of  the  measures  which  Your  Ex- 
cellency has  deemed  to  be  outside  the  scope  of  the 
powers  which  accrue  to  Chile  while  she  continues  in 
the  occupation  of  those  territories,  or  contrary  to  the 
rights  which  the  Peruvian  nation  believes  to  have  over 
them. 

This  procedure  was  the  one  which  best  answered  the 
purpose  of  taking  duly  into  account  the  observations 
of  the  Government  of  Your  Excellency,  of  giving  at- 
tention to  all  those  which  the  Government  might  accept 
by  reason  of  courtesy,  equity,  or  deference  toward 
Peru,  and  of  manifesting  and  proving  that  none  of  the 
measures  which  have  been  the  subject  of  claims  formu- 
lated by  Your  Excellency  has  the  character  of  hostility 
or  of  violence  which  is  attributed  to  them,  nor  do  they 
amount  absolutely  to  an  exception  in  the  regime  to 
which  the  public  administration  of  the  country  is  sub- 
ject. 

It  was,  therefore,  necessary  to  reach  agreements  in 
the  counsels  of  the  Cabinet  relative  to  the  measures 
which  have  originated  in  the  several  departments  and 
then  to  give  to  Your  Excellency  the  reply  which  would 
be  in  accor.d  with  said  agreements. 

This  is  what  the  department  has  not  been  able  to 
bring  about  thus  far,  owing  to  the  circumstances 
pointed  out,  which  oblige  it  to  limit  itself  at  the  present 
time  to  give  to  Your  Excellency  a  brief  explanation  of 
the  involuntary  delay  which  has  occasioned  the  last 
note  of  Your  Excellency. 


207 

In  closing,  I  must  reiterate  to  Your  Excellency,  in 
general  terms,  the  assurance  that  the  measures  to 
which  the  observations  contained  in  the  communication 
of  Your  Excellency  of  November  14th  refer,  involve  no 
other  purpose  than  that  of  taking  care  in  a  suitable 
manner  of  the  administrative  progress  of  the  depart- 
ments of  Tacna  and  Arica.  With  regard  to  the  pro- 
jected fixing  of  boundaries  between  Arica  and  Pisagua, 
I  must  state  to  Your  Excellency  that  the  respective 
antecedents  are  found  at  the  Ministry  of  the  Interior 
and  that  the  resolutions  which  that  Department  may 
dictate  on  the  matter  will  refer  only  to  the  interior 
regime  of  Chilean  territory  or  that  legitimately  oc- 
cupied by  Chile. 

As  soon  as  the  situation  of  the  G-overnment  becomes 
normal,  this  department  will  send  to  Your  Excellency 
a  careful  and  detailed  reply  on  all  the  points  set  forth 
in  the  communication  of  Your  Excellency,  and  I  hope 
to  answer  fully  and  satisfactorily  the  observations 
therein  contained. 

Aside  from  this,  this  being  in  connection  with  deli- 
cate questions,  which  are  vexations  and  susceptible  of 
leading  to  the  most  serious  misunderstandings,  as  Your 
Excellency  believes,  the  undersigned  does  not  deem 
justified  the  pressure  which  is  embodied  in  the  last 
communication  of  Your  Excellency,  so  much  more  so 
as  the  Legation  of  Peru  has  full  knowledge  of  the  cir- 
cumstances to  which  I  have  referred  in  this  communi- 
cation. 

I  renew  to  Your  Excellency  the  assurance  of  my 
highest  consideration. 

Emilio  Bello. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister 
Plenipotentiary  of  Peru. 


208 

Report  of  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs  Submitted 
to  the  Chilean  Chamber  of  Deputies  on  January 
14,1901. 

[Translation.] 
Honorable   Chamber: 

The  protocol  negotiated  with  Peru  on  April  16,  1898, 
for  the  purpose  of  fulfilling  Article  III  of  the  Treaty 
of  Ancon,  has  been  submitted  to  the  consideration  of 
this  Honorable  Chamber  since  August,  1898. 

Many  and  lengthy  sessions  were  devoted  to  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  said  agreement,  and  it  was  only  at 
the  session  of  September  24th  that  the  general  idea  of 
negotiating  with  Peru  in  order  to  resolve  as  to  the 
conditions  under  which  the  plebiscite  that  is  to  decide 
as  to  the  final  nationality  of  Tacna  and  Arica  is  to 
be  held,  was  approved.  But  the  intense  opposition 
that  some  of  the  stipulations  of  the  agreement  mer- 
ited, made  impossible  its  ratification,  solicited  by  the 
Executive,  without  introducing  modifications  in  it  that 
would  have  to  be  the  subject  of  new  negotiations. 

Since  that  date,  not  any  progress  has  been  made 
in  the  discussion,  which  has  remained  suspended  un- 
til the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  again  has  asked 
for  a  decision  upon  the  part  of  the  Honorable 
Chamber. 

After  reviewing  the  facts  of  the  case,  your  Foreign 
Relations  Committee  esteems  that  it  is  of  manifest 
convenience  for  both  countries  that  the  primordially 
important  question  that  the  Protocol  of  1898  submits 
to  the  decision  of  an  arbitrator,  be  settled  directly 
between  the  respective  Governments.  The  Commit- 
tee also  considers  well-founded  some  of  the  remarks 
made  in  the  course  of  previous  debates,  that  are,  in 
great  part,  in  complete  accord  with  the  propositions 


209 

made  to  the  Peruvian  representative  by  the  Minister 
of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile  during  the  negotia- 
tions preliminary  to  that  agreement. 

Besides,  as  the  idea  of  negotiating  with  Peru  re- 
garding plebiscite  conditions,  is  already  approved  in 
general,  the  Committee  believes  that  not  any  useful 
purpose  would  be  accomplished  in  continuing  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  protocol,  as  any  proposed  modifications 
thereto  could  not  be  adopted  without  first  being  dis- 
cussed and  accepted  by  both  Governments,  in  nego- 
tiations that  are  of  the  exclusive  resort  of  the  De- 
partments of  Foreign  Relations. 

In  order  not  to  hinder  the  action  of  the  Executive, 
tending  toward  the  reaching  of  an  agreement  between 
both  countries,  it  is  preferable  to  send  the  facts  to 
the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  so  that  he  may 
initiate  new  diplomatic  negotiations. 

To  this  effect,  your  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations 
has  the  honor  of  proposing  the  following  Bill: 

"Taking  into  consideration  the  different  ideas 
expressed  in  the  course  of  the  debate,  and  es- 
pecially the  advisability  that  exists  in  order  that 
the  Governments  of  Chile  and  of  Peru  should 
settle  directly  between  them  the  questions  sub- 
mitted to  the  decision  of  an  arbitrator  by  the 
Protocol  of  April  16,  1898,  the  Chamber  resolves 
that  the  facts  be  sent  to  the  Executive,  in  order 
that  new  diplomatic  negotiations  tending  to  the 
fulfillment  of  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon, 
may  be  initiated. 

"  Santiago,  January  14,  1901.  Miguel  Cru- 
chaga,  Francisco  A.  Pinto,  Manuel  Salinas,  Guil- 
lermo  Pinto  Aguero. ' ' 


210 

Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile  to  Minister  of 
Peru  in  Chile. 


(Number  68.) 


[Translation.] 


Republic  of  Chile, 
Ministry  of  Foreign  Relations, 

Santiago,  January  19,  1901. 
Mr.  Minister: 

I  proceed  to  give  Your  Excellency  the  reply  re- 
peatedly requested  by  Your  Excellency  as  to  several 
administrative  measures  adopted  by  the  Government 
of  Chile  in  the  departments  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

In  my  former  communication,  under  date  of  De- 
cember 18,  last,  I  explained  the  reasons  that  had  pre- 
vented me  from  giving  Your  Excellency  an  immediate 
reply  and  that  counseled  not  replying  precipitately, 
in  order  previously  to  make  a  careful  study  of  the 
antecedents  of  each  of  the  measures  adopted  by  the 
different  departments  of  State,  which  furnished 
material  for  Your  Excellency's  remonstrances. 

In  possession  to-day  of  all  those  antecedents,  it  is 
proper  for  me  to  give  Your  Excellency  the  necessary 
explanations.  I  trust  they  will  carry  conviction  to 
Your  Excellency's  mind  that  the  acts  of  my  Govern- 
ment are  the  result  of  lofty  sentiments  of  rectitude 
and  respect  for  the  rights  of  others  and  that  they 
are  in  accord  with  the  strict  fulfillment  of  its  duties, 
among  which  the  first  of  all  is  the  defense  and  main- 
tenance of  its  own  rights. 

Under  date  of  February  9  of  last  year,  the  Intendant 
of  Tacna  issued  a  decree  that  received  the  approval 
of  the  Government,  by  which  he  exacted  of  the 
directors  of  private  establishments  for  primary  in- 
struction compliance  with  the  provision  contained  in 


211 

Article  XVI,  Section  3,  of  the  Law  of  November  24, 
1860. 

Pursuant  to  this  decree,  there  had  appeared  a 
number  of  requests  from  different  private  establish- 
ments for  primary  instruction  for  the  respective  per- 
mits of  the  administrative  authority  to  continue  func- 
tioning lawfully. 

After  the  submission  of  these  requests — with  all 
the  necessary  antecedents  relative  to  the  conduct  ob- 
served by  the  teachers  of  the  schools  presided  over 
by  Peruvians  and  supported  or  subventioned  by 
Peru — to  the  consideration  of  the  Government,  it  was 
decided  by  the  Department  of  Public  Instruction  to 
refuse  the  respective  permits,  it  having  in  view  there- 
for strong  and  well  founded  reasons. 

Article  I  of  the  Law  of  November  24,  1860,  provides 
that  "primary  instruction  will  be  given  under  the 
direction  of  the  State/ y 

Article  III  of  the  same  law  provides  that  the  history 
and  geography  of  Chile  shall  be  taught  in  the  schools. 

It  is  the  duty  of  the  Government  to  see  to  it  that 
the  teaching  that  may  be  imparted  in  the  public  and 
private  schools  shall  be  in  no  wise  contrary  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  State,  which  establishes  the  fun- 
damental principle  of  national  sovereignty. 

Well  then:  from  the  antecedents  that  the  Govern- 
ment has  collected  as  to  the  procedure  observed  in 
the  private  schools  of  Tacna  presided  over  by  Peru- 
vian teachers,  there  appear  substantial  facts  of  a  very 
serious  character,  some  of  which  are  equivalent  to  a 
genuine  violation  of  the  penal  law. 

The  Government  has  been  able  to  learn  that  in  the 
twenty-three  private  schools  that  existed  in-  Tacna, 
neither  the  history  nor  the  geography  of  Chile  was 
taught,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  sentiments  of  hostility 


212 

toward  Chile  were  inculcated  in  the  pupils:  they 
sang  only  Peruvian  hymns,  in  the  verses  of  which 
Chilean  occupation  was  qualified  as  "a  brutal  yoke/' 
and  in  this  way  was  carried  on  a  campaign  of  propa- 
ganda against  our  country  and  of  disregard  of  the 
national  sovereignty. 

The  measures  adopted  were  applied,  consequently, 
in  the  only  manner  open  to  the  Government,  and  they 
are  in  complete  conformity  with  the  administrative 
and  legal  powers  of  the  Executive. 

They  do  not  constitute  an  exceptional  procedure, 
for,  if  the  facts  that  give  rise  to  them  had  occurred  in 
any  other  department  of  the  Republic,  they  would  have 
been  issued  in  a  similar  form ;  and,  being  applied  with 
greater  strictness,  even  the  action  of  the  public 
ministry  would  have  been  required  to  punish  the  crim- 
inal responsibility  of  such  as  might  be  deemed  guilty 
of  an  attack  on  the  sovereignty  of  the  state. 

Nor  are  the  measures  adopted  in  respect  of  the 
private  schools  of  Tacna  equivalent  to  a  disregard 
of  the  right  possessed  by  every  person  to  engage  in 
teaching  in  the  manner  he  may  prefer,  provided  he 
respect  and  observe  the  legal  provisions  to  which  the 
inhabitants  of  that  province  are  subject. 

The  Government  could  not  limit  this  right  save 
only  in  so  far  as  it  is  under  obligation  to  see  to  it 
that  it  should  be  properly  exercised. 

In  other  respects,  the  Government  concerns  itself 
with  the  due  satisfaction  of  the  needs  of  public  in- 
struction in  Tacna  and  Arica,  and  it  recognizes  the 
civilizing  influence  which,  there  as  everywhere,  it  is 
designed  to  exercise  on  the  progress  and  culture  of 
the  people. 

It  was  in  view  of  this  design  that  well  trained 
teachers  have  been  sent  to  Tacna  and  Arica,  .that  new 


213 

schools,  of  a  kind  and  number  that  would  render 
private  initiative  unnecessary  and  much  less  so  the 
participation  of  any  other  Government  than  that  of 
Chile,  were  established,  and,  finally  that  a  girls'  high 
school,  included  in  the  budgetary  law  of  the  present 
year,  was  created. 

To  these  measures  alluded,  doubtless,  my  pre- 
decessor, Seiior  Errazuriz  Urmeneta,  when  he  ex- 
plained to  Your  Excellency  that  my  Government  is 
engaged  in  creating  a  definitive  situation,  and  that  it 
would  make  it  a  duty  to  push  the  solution,  that  it 
might  be,  in  any  case,  based  on  the  sentiments  of 
justice  and  true  harmony  that  ought  to  characterize 
the  relations  of  neighboring  and  friendly  peoples. 

The  steps  taken  by  this  Government  to  define  or 
clear  up  the  boundaries  of  the  departments  of  Tacna 
and  Arica  in  order  to  determine  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  authorities  charged  with  pronouncing  on  questions 
of  public  and  private  interest  of  which  they  must, 
respectively,  take  cognizance,  have  given  rise  to  divers 
and  repeated  observations  by  Your  Excellency. 

Your  Excellency  holds  that  the  dividing  line  of  the 
departments  mentioned  possesses  an  international 
character,  because  it  lies  at  the  point  of  separation  be- 
tween the  territory  of  Tarapaca,  definitively  in- 
corporated with  Chile,  pursuant  to  the  Treaty  of 
Peace  of  1883,  and  the  territory  of  Tacna  and  Arica, 
whose  definitive  future  is  subject  to  the  contingencies 
of  a  plebiscite. 

Your  Excellency  deduces  from  this  interpretation 
that  it  is  impossible  to  disregard  the  participation  of 
Peru  in  the  determination  of  the  boundaries  of  the 
departments  mentioned,  even  if  such  be  for  the  purpose 
of  internal  administration. 


214 

The  undersigned  is  not  unaware  that,  if  it  were  a 
question  of  denning  the  boundary  between  the  Chilean 
territory  of  Tarapaca  and  the  territories  of  Tacna 
and  Arica,  in  order  to  determine  how  far  Chilean 
sovereignty  extends,  a  case  would  have  arisen  that 
would  have  given  to  all  the  governments  concerned 
in  fixing  the  boundary  a  right  to  intervene. 

Inasmuch,  however,  as  the  measures  adopted  by 
this  Government  are  designed  solely  to  resolve  dif- 
ficulties of  an  internal  order,  which  have  to  do  with 
the  competency  or  incompetency  of  the  authorities 
to  take  cognizance  of  matters  that  fall  within  their 
jurisdiction;  and  still  more,  as  these  measures  are  de- 
manded by  private  individuals  that  are  interested  in 
establishing  their  rights  in  a  legal  manner,  there 
would  be  no  reason  to  attribute  to  the  resolutions 
adopted  by  the  Department  of  the  Interior  in  respect 
of  the  affair  any  other  scope  or  any  other  significance 
than  that  of  an  administrative  measure  intended  to 
meet  the  requirements  of  a  good  public  service  in 
the  departments  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

Nor  could  it  be  supposed  that  the  delimitation  of 
the  boundary  that  separates  two  departments  of  the 
Republic,  by  means  of  a  supreme  decree,  is  to  be  re- 
garded as  an  extraordinary  measure  that  transcends 
our  lawful  control. 

The  decrees  issued  previously  on  this  same  sub- 
ject substantiate  the  same. 

The  Treaty  of  Ancon  is  a  law  of  the  Republic  of 
Chile.  In  it  are  fixed  the  boundaries  of  the  province 
of  Tarapaca  and  those  of  Tacna  and  Arica  subject 
to  Chilean  legislation. 

Every  measure  addressed  to  determining  the  sphere 
of  action  of  the  authorities,  or  to  settling  disputes  or 
difficulties  that  may  arise  in  the  realm  of  internal  ad- 


215 

ministration  are  of  the  exclusive  competency  of  the 
Government  of  Chile,  which  possesses  the  same  powers 
in  Tacna  and  Arica  as,  in  pursuance  of  the  legislation 
of  the  country,  it  exercises  in  the  rest  of  the  Republic. 

Inasmuch,  therefore,  as  it  is  not  a  question  of  set- 
tling* a  dispute  as  to  boundaries  with  the  Government 
of  Peru,  which  has  not  presented  itself,  but  of  settling 
disputes  that  have  arisen  in  the  internal  or  admini- 
strative realm,  the  undersigned  holds  that  there  is 
no  ground  on  which  to  attribute  to  this  subject  an 
international  character. 

Moreover,  I  must  place  it  on  record  that  hitherto 
the  question  has  been  under  study  in  the  Department 
of  the  Interior,  to  which  the  solution  of  it  pertains. 

Your  Excellency  also  notes — as  acts  opposed  to  the 
sovereignty  of  Peru  in  Tacna  and  Arica,  as  long  as 
these  territories  are  merely  occupied  by  Chile — the 
concessions  of  deposits  of  borax  and  other  mineral 
substances,  as  well  as  the  rental  or  sale  of  nitrate 
lands  made  by  the  Government,  in  conformity  with 
laws  in  force  in  the  Republic. 

Your  Excellency  believes  that  concessions  of  this 
character  may  be  granted  only  by  the  owner  of  tbs 
territory,  the  one  that  exercises  permanent  and  ab- 
solute sovereignty,  the  one  that  has  the  right  to  dis- 
pose of  the  soil  and  its  wealth ;  and  not  by  the  simple 
occupants,  to  whom  it  is  not  given  to  accomplish  acts 
of  seigniory,  and  who  do  not  possess  the  right  to 
encumber  the  territory  throughout  a  future  that  does 
not  belong  to  them. 

Your  Excellency  seems  to  forget  that  Clause  III  of 
the  Treaty  of  Ancon  subjected  to  Chilean  legislation 
the  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  and,  that,  in  con- 
sequence, our  laws  prevail  there  without  any  limita- 
tion whatsoever  and  in  the  same  manner  as  in  the 
other  provinces  of  the  Republic. 


216 

Your  Excellency  considers  that  Chile  may  not  per- 
form acts  that  presuppose  the  complete  exercise  of 
sovereignty. 

According  to  such  a  theory,  this  Government  could 
not  administer  justice,  impose  taxes  or  perform  in 
Tacna  and  Arica  any  of  the  acts  that  pertain  properly 
to  the  exercise  of  sovereignty,  and  therefore  it  could 
not  assume  charge  of  the  administrative  services  in 
those  territories,  which,  in  such  a  case,  would  be  aban- 
doned to  their  own  fate. 

Among  the  faculties  of  administrating  a  territory, 
pursuant  to  the  laws  of  the  country,  is  included  that 
of  making  concessions  of  mines  and  deposits  of 
mineral  substances,  and  that  of  renting  or  disposing 
of  fiscal  lands  for  exploitation,  cultivation  or  coloniza- 
tion. 

To  stimulate  the  progress  and  development  of  pro- 
duction, wealth  and  commerce  in  the  territories  sub- 
ject to  the  administration  and  laws  of  Chile  is  one 
of  the  fundamental  duties  of  the  Government. 

Might  it  be  affirmed  that  what  the  Governments  de- 
sired when  they  signed  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  was  to 
keep  Tacna  and  Arica  in  a  state  of  stagnation  by  dis- 
regarding their  needs,  their  industries,  their  natural 
and  progressive  development? 

Furthermore,  what  evil  could  result  from  conces- 
sions for  exploiting  mineral  substances,  which  all  pri- 
vate individuals,  without  distinction  of  nationality, 
may  solicit  in  Tacna  and  Arica,  as  well  as  in  any  other 
department  of  Chile? 

Can  there  be  anything  in  this  that  would  contradict 
the  spirit  and  letter  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  or  that 
would  in  the  slightest  degree  wound  the  national  sen- 
timent of  Peru? 

The  undersigned  holds  there  is  not.  and,  on  the 
contrary,  he  considers  that  whatever  may  be  the  de- 


217 

finitive  fate  of  the  territories  whose  nationality  will 
be  settled  by  the  stipulated  plebiscite,  it  is  Chile's 
duty,  and  one  that  she  will  be  able  duly  to  perform, 
to  give  thought  to  the  means  which,  according  to  our 
legal  regime,  she  deems  adequate  to  the  proper  ad- 
ministration of  the  departments  of  Tacna  and  Arica, 
the  well-being  of  their  inhabitants  and  the  prosperity 
and  progress  of  those  territories. 

The  remonstrances  that  Your  Excellency  formulates 
in  respect  of  the  scheme  for  the  extension  of  the  rail- 
way from  Tacna  to  Arica — nowT  pending  the  consider- 
ation of  the  Congress  and  taking  the  same  course  as 
all  similar  solicitations — as  well  as  the  objections 
Your  Excellency  raises  in  respect  of  important  plans 
for  irrigating  the  fertile  valley  of  Tacna,  which  are 
being  studied  with  real  interest  by  this  Government 
and  the  realization  of  which  would  be  of  the  greatest 
benefit  to  that  region,  are  sufficiently  answered  by  the 
general  reasons  that  I  have  just  adduced  in  the  fore- 
going paragraphs. 

I  deem  it  unnecessary  to  add  that  the  plan  of  col- 
onizing the  lands,  to-day  untilled,  of  the  valley  of 
Tacna,  is,  in  the  main,  subject  to  the  irrigation  of  the 
valley  itself  and  is  of  the  greatest  importance  to  the 
future  of  that  locality. 

The  removal  to  Tacna  of  the  seat  of  the  First  Mili- 
tary Zone,  and  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  that  functioned 
in  Iquique,  has  also  been  considered  by  Your  Ex- 
cellency an  extraordinary  and  an  inexplicable  measure, 
designed  to  have  an  undue  influence  on  the  acts  that 
are  to  take  place  when  the  moment  arrives  for  the 
decision  in  the  plebiscite  of  the  fate  of  the  depart- 
.  ments  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

If  Your  Excellency  recognized  the  constitutional 
power  possessed  by  the  Executive  to  effect  this  re- 


218 

moval,  nothing  would  have  to  be  added  in  reply  to 
Your  Excellency's  observations,  were  it  not  that  I 
deem  it  expedient  to  place  on  record  the  reasons  in 
behalf  of  a  good  service  that  have  counseled  the 
measure  to  which  I  allude. 

Climatic  conditions  and  greater  facility  of  supplies 
that  are  to  be  found  in  Tacna  render  more  expedient 
the  quartering  of  troops  at  that  place  and  more 
economical  their  provisioning. 

This  last  circumstance  would  be  sufficient  of  itself 
to  justify  the  policy  of  the  Government. 

As  for  the  rest,  the  time  has  not  yet  arrived  for 
proceeding  to  the  plebiscitary  vote,  nor  is  it  proper 
to  consider  a  menace  to  freedom  of  suffrage  the 
presence  of  the  army  there,  which  now  and  later  will 
always  be  a  guaranty  of  public  order  and  tranquility, 
as  it  has  been  at  all  times  in  the  elections  that  have 
been  held  in  the  country. 

What  our  laws  prohibit  is  the  drafting  and  quar- 
tering of  the  national  guards  or  of  the  conscripts  at 
the  time  of  the  elections,  but  not  the  temporary  sta- 
tioning of  an  army  at  the  place  where  an  election 
is  to  be  held. 

As  to  the  removal  of  the  Court  of  Justice,  it  will 
be  sufficient  to  remind  Your  Excellency  that  it  func- 
tioned formerly  in  the  city  of  Tacna,  and  that  if  it 
has  recently  been  decided  that  it  should  again  have 
its  seat  in  that  city,  this  fact  is  solely  on  the  grounds 
of  a  good  judicial  service. 

Your  Excellency's  attention  has  also  been  attracted 
by  the  renewal  of  the  old  plan  designed  to  free  the 
ecclesiastical  service  of  Tacna  and  Arica  from  the 
Diocese  of  Arequipa  by  establishing  to  that  effect  an 
apostolic  vicariate. 


219 

Your  Excellency  recognizes  that  in  Peru,  as  in  Chile, 
the  Catholic  Church  lives  and  is  developed  under  the 
auspices  of  the  secular  regime  of  patronage. 

This  principle  being  established,  it  only  remains  to 
ascertain  to  which  of  the  two  Governments  pertains 
the  exercise  of  patronage  for  the  provision  of  eccles- 
iastical functions  and  benefices  in  tjie  territory  that 
Chile  occupies  pursuant  to  the  stipulations  of  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon. 

If  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  placed  the  territories  of 
Tacna  and  Arica  under  the  dominion  of  the  Chilean 
Constitution  and  laws,  it  would  seem  unquestionable 
that  the  President  of  the  Republic  must  use  there  the 
special  faculty  that  is  bestowed  on  him  by  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  State  in  Article  LXXXII,  section  13, 
which  says : 

"13.  To  exercise  the  faculties  of  patronage  in 
respect  of  churches  and  ecclesiastical  benefices 
and  persons  in  conformity  with  the  law. ' ' 

The  fact  that  the  Government  has  not  made  use  of 
this  faculty  hitherto — in  spite  of  the  irregular  con- 
duct that  has  been  observed  by  ecclesiastical  func- 
tionaries in  Tacna  and  Arica  in  respect  of  Chile  by 
becoming  the  most  active  and  constant  elements  of 
propaganda  against  the  interests  and  rights  of  this 
country — in  no  way  vitiates  the  constitutional  power 
that  His  Excellency  the  President  of  the  Republic 
has  a  right  to  exercise  as  long  as  the  Constitution  and 
laws  of  the  Republic  are  in  force  in  Tacna  and  x\rica. 

If,  too,  the  right  possessed  by  the  Government  to 
interfere  in  the  provision  of  ecclesiastical  func- 
tionaries and  benefices  in  that  territory  is  perfectly 
clear,  the  plan  of  putting  it  into  execution  is  wholly 
justified  by  the  necessity  of  offsetting  the   attitude 


220 

assumed  by  the  parish  priests  and  of  correcting  a 
situation  that  is  belittling  to  the  prestige  and  au- 
thority that  the  Government  must  maintain  in  the 
departments  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

Your  Excellency's  claim  in  respect  of  what  has  oc- 
curred in  connection  with  the  celebration  of  the  an- 
niversary of  Peruvian  independence  is  lacking  in 
foundation. 

It  is  not  true  that  the  authorities  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  hindered  or  prevented  Peruvian  citizens  from 
celebrating  the  twenty-eighth  of  July  in  any  manner 
whatsoever. 

This  is  what  occurred:  the  president  of  a  labor 
union  invited  the  Intendant  to  a  patriotic  festival  that 
was  to  be  held  in  the  Municipal  Theater.  However,  as 
in  the  program  appeared  twice  the  singing  of  a  hymn 
to  Tacna,  in  which  the  Chilean  occupation  is  quali- 
fied as  "a  brutal  yoke,"  the  Intendant  explained  to 
the  president  of  that  society  that  it  would  be  impos- 
sible for  him  to  be  present  at  the  festival  and  that  it 
would  be  belittling  to  his  dignity  to  attend  it  if  the 
hymn  to  Tacna  were  not  changed  for  the  national 
hymn  of  Peru.  The  president  mentioned  that  he 
would  consult  the  members  of  the  executive  com- 
mittee of  the  union  as  to  the  proposed  change;  and 
as  the  reply  he  received  was  couched  thus — "in  view 
of  the  objections  that  the  authorities  raise  to  the 
festival — "  they  desisted  from  holding  it.  A  state- 
ment of  these  facts  is  sufficient  to  disprove  the  charge 
that  it  has  been  attempted  to  make  against  the  author- 
ities of  Tacna  and  that  Your  Excellency,  doubtless  ill 
informed,  accepts  in  Your  Excellency's  note  of  No- 
vember 14. 

As  to  what  Your  Excellency  calls  the  "liberticide 
enterprise  of  silencing  the  voice  of  the  press  in  those 


221 

regions,"  it  is  only  necessary  for  me  to  say  here 
that  hitherto  no  measure  has  been  adopted  that  has 
tended  to  restrain  the  excesses  of  the  Peruvian  press 
in  the  province  of  Tacna,  although  the  Government 
is  aware  that  it  is  subventioned  by  the  Government 
of  Peru  and  that  the  violent  attacks  directed  against 
the  Government  of  Chile  and  the  Chilean  authorities 
of  the  locality  are  already  too  frequent. 

It  is  not  a  little  strange  that  Your  Excellency  should 
formulate  a  charge  such  as  the  one  that  I  have  just 
analyzed,  when  the  law  to  which  the  entire  press  of 
Chile  is  subject  is  not  even  in  force  in  Tacna,  inas- 
much as  the  jury  that  would  have  cognizance  and 
pronounce  decisions  in  respect  of  accusations  for 
crimes  of  the  press  has  not  been  established  tnere. 


The  bill  presented  to  the  Congress  to  reduce  the 
custom  duties  at  Arica  has,  as  its  sole  and  exclusive 
object,  the  fostering  of  the  commerce  of  that  terrritory 
and  the  improvement  and  facilitation  of  the  life  of 
its  inhabitants;  and  if  the  Government  of  Chile  is 
interested  in  looking  after  the  progress  and  welfare 
of  the  inhabitants  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  it  is  to  be 
supposed  that  the  Government  of  Peru  would  have 
at  least  an  equal  interest. 

The  undersigned  therefore  remarks  nothing  in  this 
paragraph  that  can  serve  as  a  basis  of  a  remonstrance 
by  Your  Excellency's  Government. 


Your  Excellency  also  refers  to  the  declarations  of 
the  honorable  representative  of  Chile  in  Bolivia  as 
to  the  purpose  of  Chile  in  respect  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

I  deem  it  unnecessary  to  make  myself  responsible 
for  the  declarations  that  the  Minister  of  Chile  in 
Bolivia    may    have    made    incidentally    in    a    com- 


222 

munication  addressed  to  the  Government  to  which  he 
is  accredited. 

Your  Excellency  will  not  fail  to  agree  that  only  the 
declarations  of  the  Chancellery  of  Chile  through  its 
official  organs  can  enable  Your  Excellency's  Govern- 
ment to  judge  of  the  purpose  and  the  policy  of  the 
Government  of  Chile  and  that  our  representative  in 
Bolivia  is  not  an  authorized  organ  in  respect  of  ques- 
tions pending  with  Peru. 


Finally,  Your  Excellency  protests  to  this  Chancel- 
lery against  the  indefinite  postponement  of  the  plebi- 
scite stipulated  in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  against  the 
delay  caused  in  the  despatching  of  the  Billinghurst- 
Latorre  protocol  and  against  the  retardation  of  the 
solution  of  the  problem  of  Tacna  and  Arica  and  the 
wresting  of  these  provinces  that  Your  Excellency  at- 
tributes to  Chile. 

The  explanations  contained  in  this  note  in  respect 
of  each  of  the  charges  formulated  by  Your  Excellency 
show  clearly  that  all  the  administrative  measures 
adopted  or  on  the  way  to  adoption  by  my  Government 
are  within  the  constitutional  and  legal  faculties  of  the 
Executive. 

-None  of  these  measures  implies  hostility  to  or  dis- 
regard of,  the  rights  of  Peru,  or  runs  counter  to  the 
stipulations  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon.  The  most  of 
them  are  designed  to  stimulate  the  development  of 
the  territory  and  to  secure  the  well-being  of  the  in- 
habitants and  to  assure  their  prosperity  and  future 
aggrandizement. 

By  these  legitimate  means — applying  her  laws  and 
keeping  within  the  realm  assigned  to  her  by  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon — Chile  is  seeking  to  strengthen  her 
chances  for  the  definitive  dominion  of  Tacna  and 
Arica. 


223 

She  will  spare  no  effort  to  fulfill  the  mission  im- 
posed on  her  in  respect  of  those  territories  by  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon,  in  a  manner  that  will  render  her 
worthy  of  the  confidence  and  gratitude  of  their  in- 
habitants. 

While  respecting  the  rights  and  the  legitimate  ex- 
pectations of  Peru,  my  Government  will  continue  to 
minister  to  the  interests  and  needs  of  the  present 
departments  of  Tacna  and  Arica  to  the  full  measure 
of  her  powers,  and  the  contigency  that  they  may  pass 
later  under  the  dominion  of  Peru,  together  with  all 
the  benefits  that  have  accrued  to  them  from  the  well 
meaning  and  progressive  undertakings  of  the  Chilean 
administration  will  not  diminish  its  activity. 

The  Government  of  Chile  has  cherished  no  design 
of  postponing  indefinitely  the  solution  of  the  problem 
of  Tacna  and  Arica,  nor  may  Your  Excellency's  Gov- 
ernment justly  charge  it  with  having  done  so. 

The  agreement  about  the  Billinghurst-Latorre  Pro- 
tocol is  the  most  conclusive  proof  that  this  Govern- 
ment has  carried  its  good  will  in  respect  of  Peru 
beyond  what  was  possible  within  the  constitutional 
limitations  within  which  it  would  have  exercised  its 
action  in  order  to  arrive  at  an  understanding  with 
the  Government  of  Peru. 

Your  Excellency  is  aware  that  the  protocol  men- 
tioned encountered  insuperable  obstacles  among  the 
membership  of  the  Honorable  Chamber  of  Deputies, 
when  it  was  submitted  to  its  consideration  in  1898, 
and  that  the  efforts  made  by  the  Government  to  obtain 
its  approval  have  been  inefficacious. 

As  the  discussion  of  the  protocol  has  been  inde- 
finitely postponed,  different  circumstances,  inde- 
pendent of  the  will  of  the  Government,  have  delayed 
a  pronouncement  by  that  branch  of  the  legislative 


224 

power,  thus  producing  the  consequent  paralyzation  of 
the  negotiations  subject  to  the  sanctioning  of  that 
protocol  by  the  Chilean  Congress. 

The  recent  motion  adopted  by  the  Chamber  of  Depu- 
ties, when  it  again  took  up  the  consideration  of  the 
Billinghurst-Latorre  Protocol,  has  put  an  end  to  this 
uncertain  situation  that  hindered  and  delayed  the  ef- 
forts that  should  have  been  carried  forward  by  both 
Governments  with  a  view  to  settling  the  problem  as 
to  the  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

The  Chamber  of  Deputies  did  not  give  its  approval 
to  the  protocol  of  April  16,  1898,  because  it  considers 
that  it  ought  to  be  modified  in  some  of  its  provisions, 
and  it  has  voted  to  send  the  antecedents  to  the  Gov- 
ernment in  order  that  it  may  take  steps  to  introduce 
the  necessary  modifications,  thus  opening  fresh  nego- 
tiations to  this  effect  with  the  Chancellery  of  Peru. 

The  question  that  so  greatly  interests  and  preoc- 
cupies the  Governments  of  Chile  and  Peru  has  re- 
mained at  this  stage. 

It  would  be  neither  just  nor  in  keeping  with  the 
truth  to  blame  either  of  the  Governments  for  not  hav- 
ing arrived  sooner  at  a  definitive  solution  and  one 
that  would  have  consulted  the  interests  of  both 
countries. 

It  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  wholesome  designs  that 
characterized  the  Chancelleries  in  their  former  nego- 
tiations will  be  pushed  with  an  equal  spirit  of  peace 
and  harmony  in  the  efforts  that  should  be  undertaken 
once  more  in  order  to  seek  an  agreement  that  will 
render  possible  the  loyal  and  honorable  fulfillment  of 
the  stipulations  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon. 

As  the  will  of  the  Governments  is  pledged  in  this 
sense,  it  will  not  be,  in  the  opinion  of  the  undersigned, 
so  difficult  an  undertaking  to  arrive  at  a  definitive' 


225 

understanding  that  will  be,  at  one  and  the  same  time, 
the  first  step  toward  the  reestablishment,  upon  the 
foundation  of  a  close  and  sincere  friendship,  of  the 
cordiality  of  relations  that  ought  to  exist  between 
sister  nations  destined  to  move  unitedly  along  the 
highway  of  the  future. 

I  renew  to  Your  Excellency  the  assurances  of  my 
most  distinguished  consideration. 

Emilio  Bello. 
To  His  Excellency, 

Senor  Cesareo  Chacaltana, 

Minister    Plenipotentiary    and    Envoy    Extraor- 
dinary of  Peru. 


Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Minister  of  Foreign  Rela- 
tions of  Chile. 

[Translation.] 
(Number  7.) 

Legation  of  Peru  in  Chile, 
Santiago,  January  30,  1901. 
Mr.  Minister: 

I  have  had  the  honor  to  receive  Your  Excellency's 
note  of  the  nineteenth  of  the  present  month,  in  re- 
ply to.  mine  of  the  fourteenth  of  November,  both  rela- 
tive to  the  measures  recently  adopted  in  respect 
of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica.  As  the  con- 
siderations adduced  by  Your  Excellency  have  not 
succeeded  in  disproving  the  justice  of  the  remon- 
strances of  Peru,  I  am  compelled  to  insist  upon  them. 

In  order  to  justify  the  closing  of  the  private  schools 
directed  by  Peruvians,  Your  Excellency  appeals  to 
Article  I  of  the  law  of  November  24,  1860,  according 
to  which  primary  instruction  must  be  given  under  the 


226 

supervision  of  the  State;  to  Article  III  of  the  same, 
which  prescribes  the  teaching  of  history  and  geog- 
raphy of  Chile;  and  to  the  duty  of  the  Government 
to  prevent  all  instruction  contrary  to  the  political 
Constitution. 

Primary  instruction  ought  certainly  to  be  imparted 
under  the  high  direction  of  the  State;  but  the  very 
law  mentioned  by  Your  Excellency  specifies  the  limi- 
tations of  this  general  principle  in  respect  of  given 
cases,  in  order  to  safeguard  private  rights  and  in- 
terests. One  of  these  limitations  is  contained  in  Ar- 
ticle XI,  thus:  schools  maintained  by  private  indi- 
viduals or  by  tuition  fees  paid  by  pupils  are  subject  to 
the  inspection  established  by  the  present  law,  in  re- 
spect of  the  morality  and  order  of  the  establishment, 
but  not  in  respect  of  the  teaching  that  may  be  imparted 
in  them  or  of  the  methods  that  may  be  employed.  This 
provision  is  confirmed  by  Article  XXIX  of  the  same 
law  and  by  Article  III  of  the  general  regulations  of 
primary  instruction. 

What  has  been  noted  is  sufficient  to  disprove  Your 
Excellency's  arguments  in  respect  of  the  interference 
of  the  authorities  in  the  matter  of  instruction  in 
primary  schools. 

I  will  add,  however,  a  few  words  as  to  the  failure 
to  teach  the  history  and  geography  of  Chile.  Article 
III,  invoked  by  Your  Excellency  to  justify  the  charge, 
refers  only  to  schools  supported  by  the  State,  which 
are  classified  as  elementary  and  superior,  and  it  then 
determines  the  kind  of  teaching  that  must  be  supplied 
in  each  of  them. 

In  keeping  with  this  order  of  ideas,  Article  XLIII 
of  the  regulations  of  primary  instruction  divides 
schools  into  public  and  private ;  it  considers  as  among 
the  former  those  supported  by  the  public  funds ;  and 


227 

as  among  the  latter  those  maintained  by  private  funds. 
Article  XLIV  adds:  "the  public  schools  are  divided 
into  elementary  and  superior.  In  the  former  will 
be  taught,  in  the  same  way,  the  branches  indicated  in 
section  3  of  the  aforementioned  article  and  others 
that  the  Government  may  designate."  Section  3  of 
Article  III  provides  the  teaching  of  the  history  and 
geography  of  Chile  in  the  superior  public  schools. 

The  last  classification,  as  may  be  seen,  and  the  sub- 
sequent specification  of  the  branches  that  must  be 
taught  in  the  elementary  and  superior  schools  do  not 
refer  to  them,  inasmuch  as  they  are  not  subject,  ac- 
cording to  what  has  already  been  set  forth,  to  official 
inspection  in  respect  of  instruction  and  methods. 

As  to  morality  and  order:  how  have  they  been 
attacked  in  the  schools  directed  by  Peruvian  teachers ! 
Your  Excellency  has  not  seen  fit  to  explain  how  in  a 
sufficiently  concrete  manner.  Your  Excellency  limits 
yourself  to  quoting,  in  support  of  your  assertion,  two 
words  of  a  hymn,  the  intercalation  of  which  in  the 
same  might  have  been  prohibited  without  the  necessity 
of  resorting  to  the  extreme  means  of  closing  the 
schools. 

According  to  the  aforementioned  law  and  regu- 
lations— the  binding  rules  of  the  authorities  in  re- 
spect of  primary  instruction — a  person  may  only  be 
deprived  of  the  right  to  exercise  the  teaching  function 
in  the  following  cases :  when  he  shall  not  be  credited, 
by  the  testimony  of  two  reliable  persons,  with  the 
leading  of  a  correct  life  and  the  possession  of  good 
habits ;  when  he  is  under  indictment  or  condemnation 
for  a  crime  the  author  of  which  may  be  subject  to 
corporal  or  degrading  punishment ;  when  he  has  been 
discharged  for  a  proven  cause  that  involves  his  moral- 
ity and  habits;  and  when  he  suffers  from  some 
physical  defect. 


228 

Well,  then:  the  Intendant  of  Tacna  and  the  Gov- 
ernor of  Arica,  in  issuing  their  decrees  of  February, 
1900,  based  their  action  exclusively  on  the  fact  that 
some  teachers  had  not  complied  with  the  requirements 
X^rovided  by  Article  XVI  of  the  law  of  1860,  which  are 
limited  to  a  proof  of  correct  life  and  habits,  on  the 
testimony  of  two  reliable  persons.  None  of  the  other 
causes  indicated  were  adduced  at  the  time,  nor  have 
they  been  alleged  since  then. 

Nothing  was  said  in  those  decrees  as  to  the  failure 
to  teach  the  geography  and  history  of  Chile,  nor  of 
the  dissemination  of  doctrines  contrary  to  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  State,  nor  of  infractions  of  the  penal 
law.  In  both  decrees  there  was  an  offer,  besides,  to 
renew  the  permits  to  those  that  should  prove  that 
they  had  fulfilled  the  required  conditions. 

The  Peruvian  teachers  easily  established,  within  the 
period  indicated,  their  legal  aptitude  to  direct  private 
schools,  and  then,  instead  of  their  being  granted  the 
permits  offered,  the  closing  of  their  establishments 
was  prolonged  under  the  pretext  that  the  respective 
process  had  been  transmitted  to  Santiago  for  con- 
sultation. 

Since,  in  the  light  of  the  law  and  of  the  regulations 
of  the  case,  it  was  impossible  to  decree  the  definitive 
closing  of  the  schools,  an  expedient  was  adopted  for 
making  a  careful  investigation  in  order  to  discover 
other  grounds  that  might  serve  to  justify  the  measure. 
In  this  process,  the  principal  parts  of  which  Senor 
Errazuriz  Urmeneta  had  the  goodness  to  read  to  me 
in  his  office,  had  been  brought  together  reports  in 
which  the  Peruvian  teachers  were  charged  with  sev- 
eral offenses  not  previously  formulated  by  the  author- 
ities of  Arica  and  Tacna. 


229 

The  Attorney-General  of  the  Supreme  Court,  that 
is,  the  highest  representative  of  the  public  ministry, 
in  spite  of  these  recent  charges,  did  not  consider  the 
Executive  authorized,  in  conformity  with  the  existing 
laws,  to  order  the  definitive  closing,  nor  did  he  accuse 
the  teachers  of  infractions  of  the  penal  law.  The 
said  functionary  participated,  nevertheless,  in  the 
adoption  of  the  projected  measure,  and  he  maintained, 
to  that  effect,  the  doctrine  that  the  Executive  Power — 
in  the  exercise  of  his  peculiar  faculties  derived  from 
the  principles  of  international  law — might  dictate,  in 
the  said  provinces,  measures  designed  to  suppress 
denounced  abuses,  without  reference  to  the  general 
laws  of  instruction.  The  Government  approved,  com- 
pletely, the  opinions  of  the  Attorney-General  and  in- 
structed the  Intendant  of  Tacna,  in  pursuance  of  them, 
to  keep  the  Peruvian  schools  definitively  closed.  The 
measure  was  sanctioned  therefore,  not  in  the  name  or 
in  fulfillment  of  the  existing  laws  in  respect  of  primary 
instruction,  but  in  obedience  to  the  principles  of  in- 
ternational laws,  although  they  are  applicable  only  in 
cases  of  military  occupation  or  under  the  rule  of 
martial  law. 

Your  Excellency's  Government,  without  a  firm  point 
of  support  in  this  affair,  has  fathered,  successively, 
two  incompatible  doctrines:  first,  the  insufficiency  of 
the  laws  of  instruction  as  the  basis  of  a  decree  in 
favor  of  closing  and  the  necessity  of  appealing  to 
faculties  derived  from  international  laws;  and,  after- 
ward, the  defectiveness  of  the  said  laws  for  the  object 
indicated.  However,  by  neither  of  them,  as  I  have 
shown  in  my  former  communication  and  the  present 
one,  has  Your  Excellency  been  able  to  justify  the 
closing  to  which  allusion  has  been  made. 


230 

The  Government  of  Chile,  as  Your  Excellency  ex- 
plains to  me,  has  sent  to  Tacna  and  Arica  well 
trained  teachers  and  has  created  new  schools.  It  is 
to  be  lamented  that  Your  Excellency's  Government 
was  not  able  or  did  not  deem  it  expedient  to  adopt 
these  measures  until  twenty  years  after  its  authority 
had  begun  to  prevail  in  the  aforementioned  regions; 
and  it  is  equally  regrettable  that  they  should  have 
been  adopted  after  the  expiration  of  the  period  of 
legal  occupation,  after  the  Peruvian  teachers  had  been 
deprived  of  their  rights  and  at  the  moment  in  which 
the  definitive  incorporation  of  the  said  provinces  with 
Chile  was  being  prepared  for  by  means  of  acts  in 
violation  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace. 

According  to  Your  Excellency,  it  was  to  those 
measures,  doubtless,  that  Senor  Errazuriz  Urmeneta 
referred  when  he  spoke  with  me  of  the  plan  of  creat- 
ing, in  this  respect,  a  definite  situation  and  one  that 
would  lead  to  a  just  solution.  I  regret  to  dissent 
from  Your  Excellency's  opinion.  I  never  discussed 
with  Sehor  Errazuriz  Urmeneta  whether  Chile  could 
or  could  not  found  schools;  this  point  was  never  a 
subject  of  controversy  between  us,  and  the  op- 
portunity never  arrived  to  express  the  opinion  of  my 
Government  on  the  subject.  Our  conferences  and  ex- 
changes of  notes,  like  those  that  took  place  in  Lima 
between  Senor  Riva  Aguero  and  Vicuna,  turned  solely 
on  the  necessity  of  restoring  to  the  Peruvians  the 
exercise  of  their  rights  in  respect  of  teaching.  The 
situation  in  regard  to  the  teachers  and  their  respec- 
tive schools  was  the  one  deemed  undefinable,  pre- 
carious and  deserving  of  being  remedied  in  confor- 
mity with  justice  and  a  good  intelligence  between 
our  respective  countries.  There  seemed  at  the  time 
to  exist  the  design  of  acceding  to  demands  of  Peru. 


231 

Unfortunately,  to  judge  by  the  tenor  of  Your  Ex- 
cellency's note,  the  Government  of  Chile  wholly  re- 
fuses all  purpose  of  reparation;  the  principle  of  the 
freedom  of  instruction  and  the  exercise  of  the  teaching 
profession  will  continue  to  be  illusory  in  so  far  as 
Peruvians  are  concerned.  My  compatriots  of  Tacna 
and  Arica  will  continue  to  be  in  their  native  land, 
not  definitively  incorporated  with  Chile,  subject  to 
a  regime  contrary  to  law,  exceptional  and  restrictive ; 
they  will  be  reduced  to  the  painful  alternative  of  either 
submitting  unconditionally  to  the  said  regime  or  to 
abandoning  their  own  soil  in  order  not  to  be  reduced 
to  the  most  deplorable  extremes  of  poverty  and  suf- 
fering. 

My  Government,  compelled  to  support  the  lawful 
rights  of  Peruvians,  without  authorizing  therefor  any 
abuse,  does  not  accept  these  proceedings,  which  are 
in  violation  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  and  of  the  very 
laws  of  Chile. 

Your  Excellency  does  not  admit  that  the  Govern- 
ment of  Peru  ought  to  appear  as  a  party  in  the  new 
demarcation  of  boundaries  between  Arica  and  Pisagua, 
on  the  ground  that  it  is  a  question  of  composing 
difficulties  of  a  purely  internal  order,  relative  to  the 
competency  or  incompetency  of  the  Chilean  author- 
ities and  to  the  rights  of  private  individuals. 

In  no  case,  however,  even  in  solving  a  problem  of 
internal  management,  is  it  permitted  to  disregard  the 
international  character  of  this  question.  The  au- 
thority of  Chile,  even  in  respect  of  internal  affairs, 
may  not  be  exercised  in  the  territories  north  of  the 
river  and  gorge  of  Camarones  to  the  same  extent  as 
in  those  that  lie  to  the  south  of  the  said  line.  The 
former  are  subject  to  a  simple  temporary  occupation, 
and  the  latter  to  a  definitive  dominion ;  over  the  former 


232 

it  has  been  lawful  for  Chile  to  exercise  only  the  rights 
of  the  possessor  and  usufructuary  while  over  the 
latter  she  may  exercise  the  powers  inherent  to  com- 
plete seigniory ;  in  the  former  she  has  not  been  able 
to,  and  she  can  not,  make  perpetual  concessions  of 
public  lands  or  of  wealth  related  to  the  soil;  and  in 
the  latter  she  has  been  able  to  and  can ;  in  the  former, 
political  laws  have  no  application  through  which  is 
expressed  the  exercise  of  a  permanent  and  definitive 
authority,  such  as  those  relative  to  the  election  of 
the  President  of  the  Republic,  senators  and  deputies ; 
and,  in  the  latter,  they  have;  in  the  former,  in  short, 
Chile  acts  as  a  simple  administrator  with  limited 
faculties ;  and  in  the  latter,  as  an  owner  and  sovereign. 

If,  in  tracing  the  new  dividing  line,  there  should 
be  added  to  Pisagua — as  has  been  attempted  and  is 
already  done — territories  that  belong  to  Arica,  the 
legal  status  of  the  latter  would  be  substantially  al- 
tered; the  authority  and  rights  of  Chile  would  be  un- 
duly extended  in  respect  of  them.  If,  in  respect  of 
internal  management,  Chile  were  empowered  to  ex- 
ercise over  both  territories  identical  faculties,  Your 
Excellency's  argument  would  have  some  force;  but 
as  these  faculties  have  very  different  amplitudes,  the 
new  declaration  is  a  subject  of  no  importance  to  my 
Government,  nor  may  the  right  to  participate  in  it 
be  denied  it. 

Besides,  the  reports  issued  by  Chilean  functionaries 
as  to  the  location  of  the  borate  mines  of  Chilcaya,  in 
determining  the  boundaries  between  Arica  and  Pisa- 
gua, have  taken  as  an  essential  basis  for  their  dis- 
sertations what  was  established  in  the  Treaty  of  An- 
con.  Thus  have  proceeded  the  Governor  of  Arica  and 
the  intendant  of  Tacna,  the  engineers  Renjifo  and  Pi- 
zarro  and  the  astronomer  Obrecht.    It  is  a  question, 


233 

according  to  this,  of  determining  the  meaning  and 
scope  of  that  international  Treaty,  and  therefore  Peru, 
one  of  the  signatories  of  the  convention,  ought  not 
to  be  disregarded. 

In  other  respects  Your  Excellency  does  not  con- 
tradict my  opinion  as  to  the  decrees  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  Chile,  according  to  which,  with  detriment  to 
the  territorial  integrity  of  Arica,  were  added  to  this 
province  and  are  incorporated  to-day  with  the  Chilean 
district  of  Pisagua,  the  hamlets  of  Guancarane,  Pa- 
chica  and  Esquina.  I  ought  to  suppose  that  Your 
Excellency  considers  well  founded  in  this  respect  the 
claims  of  Peru,  and  I  ought  to  hope  for  the  early 
derogation  of  the  said  decrees.  At  all  events,  the 
possibility  of  falling  into  errors  of  this  kind,  pre- 
judicial to  the  rights  of  a  neighboring  nation,  and  the 
necessity  of  preventing  them  show,  once  again,  how 
urgent  it  is  that  Peru  and  Chile  should  together  pro- 
ceed to  the  determination  anew  of  the  dividing  line 
between  Arica  and  Pisagua. 

Also,  Your  Excellency  attempts  to  justify  the  per- 
petual concessions  of  mining  appurtenances  and  public 
lands  designed  for  colonization,  as  well  as  sales  or 
rentals  for  periods  of  any  length.  Your  Excellency 
appeals,  with  this  object  in  view,  to  Article  III  of  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon,  according  to  which  the  territories 
of  Tacna  and  Arica  remained  subject  to  Chilean  legis- 
lation. As  a  consequence  Your  Excellency  says  "our 
laws  prevail  there  without  any  limitation  whatsoever 
and  in  the  same  manner  as  in  the  other  provinces 
of  the  Republic."  This  is  not  wholly  correct.  The 
authority  of  Chile  is  subordinate,  in  its  exercise,  to 
two  conditions  that  restrict  it:  to  her  character  as 
a  mere  precarious  possessor  and  to  the  duty  of  ad- 
justing her  acts  to  Chilean  legislation.     The  laws  of 


234 

Chile  exist  in  Tacna  and  Arica,  not  to  uphold  the 
rights  of  an  absolute  and  permanent  sovereignty,  but 
the  rights  of  a  temporary  occupation.  Just  as  in  the  pri- 
vate realm,  the  simple  holder  for  a  limited  time  pos- 
sesses faculties  much  more  limited  than  the  proprietor, 
although  both  are  subject  to  the  dominion  of  the  same 
legislation,  so  also  in  the  present  case  Chile  has  over 
Tacna  and  Arica,  as  a  mere  possessor,  rights  much 
more  restricted  than  over  her  own  territories,  in  spite 
of  the  fact  that  both  are  governed  by  an  identical 
legislation. 

The  signatory  nations  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  when 
they  subjected  the  authority  of  the  occupant  to  Chilean 
legislation,  purposed  to  prevent  the  exercise  of  an 
absolute  and  arbitrary  power;  but  they  did  not  en- 
tertain the  design  of  constituting  definitively  a  new 
sovereignty ;  they  referred  the  resolution  of  this  point 
to  a  subsequent  plebiscite.  In  a  word,  Chile,  as  a 
simple  possessor,  and  not  as  an  owner  and  sovereign, 
was  subjected  to  Chilean  legislation.  Hence  she  could 
administer  as  well  as  use  and  enjoy  things  until  1894; 
but  she  might  never  dispose  of  them.  Therefore  she 
might  grant  mines  and  public  lands  validly  only 
until  the  date  indicated;  but  she  might  not  and  she 
may  not  grant  perpetual  and  absolute  dominion  over 
them. 

The  foregoing  reasons  are  applicable  to  the  pro- 
jected extension,  as  far  as  San  Francisco,  of  the  rail- 
way between  Tacna  and  Arica:  a  line  in  respect  of 
which  a  purpose  to  buy  it  is  now  attributed  to  Chile. 
Chile  has  not  possessed  and  does  not  possess  the 
faculty  to  encumber  those  territories  with  obligations 
and  responsibilities  beyond  the  ten  years  of  her  legal 
occupation.     She  would  impose   such  incumbrances, 


235 

nevertheless,  if  at  the  present  time  she  should  make 
contracts  of  long  duration  on  the  said  railway  line. 

When  Your  Excellency  refers  to  the  removal  to 
Tacna  of  the  first  military  zone  originally  established 
at  Iquique,  Your  Excellency  explains  the  measure  by 
appeal  to  conditions  of  climate  and  to  the  greater 
facility  of  supplies  in  that  city. 

In  spite  of  what  has  been  set  forth  by  Your  Ex- 
cellency, I  have  a  right  to  affirm  that  climatic  and 
economic  reasons  were  of  a  secondary  character;  the 
principal  design  of  this  measure,  as  well  as  that  of 
other  measures  adopted  almost  simultaneously  with  it, 
is  that  of  bringing  about  the  so-called  Chileaniza- 
tion  of  those  regions.  The  Minister  of  Foreign  Re- 
lations, in  his  Memorial  to  the  Congress  of  1900,  in- 
dicated as  much  in  the  following  manner :  "  in  the  mean- 
while, the  Government,  making  use  of  the  rights  that 
the  Treaty  of  Ancon  itself  confers  upon  it,  has  pro- 
ceeded to  adopt,  in  respect  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  a 
series  of  measures  that  will  place  Chile  in  a  favorable 
position  for  the  holding  of  the  plebiscite.' ' 

The  concentration  of  military  forces  has  had  there- 
fore this  principal  and  admitted  object;  and  it  is  al- 
ready known  what  may  be  expected  from  the  inter- 
meddling of  armed  forces  when  it  is  a  question  of 
voting. 

"As  for  the  rest,"  Your  Excellency  adds,  "the  time 
has  not  yet  arrived  for  proceeding  to  the  plebiscitary 
vote."  This  is  not  the  opinion  of  my  Government. 
That  moment  has  arrived,  according  to  the  Treaty  of 
Peace,  since  1894.  Hence  Peru  has  striven,  from 
1892  until  the  present  time,  to  procure  the  adoption 
of  the  convention  under  which  the  plebiscite  would 
be  effected ;  and  precisely  because  the  time  to  carry  it 
into  effect  has  arrived  since  1894  does  my  Government 


236 

today  consider  the  reestablishment  of  the  state  of 
legality  that  existed  at  that  time  necessary  to  its  exe- 
cution. 

Your  Excellency  attempts  to  justify  the  projected 
creation  of  an  apostolic  vicariate  in  Tacna  and  Arica. 
Your  Excellency  says,  indeed,  that  these  provinces 
are  under  the  dominion  of  the  Chilean  Constitution 
and  laws,  and  therefore  that  the  President  of  the  Re- 
public must  exercise  in  them  the  faculty  designated 
in  Section  13  of  Article  LXXXII  of  that  Constitution. 

Your  Excellency  has  lost  sight  once  more  of  the 
circumstance  that  Chile,  because  of  her  character  as 
a  mere  administrator  and  possessor,  does  not  legally 
exercise  the  rights  of  a  permanent  and  definitive  sov- 
ereign in  the  places  mentioned.  Her  authority  has 
been  temporary  and  restricted;  and  to-day  it  is  exer- 
cised with  an  insufficient  title,  because  the  one  con- 
ceded her  by  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  lapsed  in  1894. 

Well,  then,  the  rights  of  patronage  are  related, 
because  of  their  origin  and  importance,  to  the  exer- 
cise of  a  permanent,  stable,  complete  and  definitive 
sovereignty.  These  rights  may  be  exercised,  accord- 
ing to  the  rules  prescribed  in  the  civil  and  ecclesias- 
tical realm,  only  by  the  true  sovereign  of  the  ter- 
ritory; and  Chile  does  not  possess  this  character,  nor 
will  she  possess  it  until  she  shall  triumph  in  a  law- 
fully effected  plebiscite. 

Your  Excellency  explains  what  occurred  in  Tacna 
and  Arica  on  the  memorable  date  of  the  Independence 
of  Peru  in  order  to  excuse  the  improper  attitude  of 
the  respective  authorities.  Unfortunately,  my  infor- 
mation does  not  coincide  with  that  which  has  been 
supplied  to  Your  Excellency.  According  to  the  latter, 
the  Peruvians  voluntarily  refused  to  celebrate  the 
anniversary   of  their   country   only   because   the   In- 


237 

tendant  of  Tacna  had  declined  to  attend  a  festival  to 
which  he  had  been  invited.  The  explanation  is  untrue 
at  every  point. 

The  Peruvians  of  Tacna  and  Arica  have  celebrated 
the  twenty-eighth  of  July  during  the  Chilean  occupa- 
tion with  more  enthusiasm  than  ever.  If  they  did  not 
do  so  in  1900,  thus  breaking  the  rule  observed  in 
earlier  years  and  in  spite  of  their  anticipatory  prep- 
arations, it  was,  doubtless  because  they  yielded  to 
the  exigencies  of  a  force  superior  to  their  wills. 

On  July  25,  it  was  announced  to  me  from  Arica 
that  the  Chilean  authorities  had  prohibited  the  use  of 
Peruvian  flags  on  the  twenty-eighth  and  that  they 
were  preparing  to  prevent  all  patriotic  manifestation. 
I  brought  the  news  to  the  attention  of  the  Minister 
of  Foreign  Relations,  who  felt  impelled  to  order,  by 
telegram,  that  permission  should  be  granted  for  every 
kind  of  manifestation  that  might  not  compromise 
public  order. 

On  the  morning  of  the  twenty-eighth  it  was  an- 
nounced to  me  that  the  authorities  persisted  in  their 
refusal,  for  the  concessions  made  by  them  were  in- 
significant and  valueless.  When  this  new  information 
was  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Minister  of 
Foreign  Relations,  he  immediately  reiterated  his 
former  telegram.  In  spite  of  this  new  order,  private 
individuals  were  not  permitted  to  raise  the  Peruvian 
flag  on  their  houses:  a  circumstance  that  I  op- 
portunely communicated  to  the  Minister. 

Your  Excellency  may  rest  assured  that  the  Peru- 
vians of  those  places  only  abstained  from  manifesta- 
tions of  patriotism  on  the  great  days  of  Peru  when, 
as  on  the  date  indicated,  they  were  prevented  by  force. 
They,  because  of  their  very  situation,  feel  to-day, 
with  an  especial  vehemence,  the  necessity  of  demon- 


238 

strating  the  maintenance  of  their  indestructible  ties 
with  the  Peruvian  nation  and  their  irrevocable  de- 
cision not  to  be  separated  from  her. 

As  to  the  press,  I  need  not  add  anything  to  what 
has  already  been  said.  I  did  not  asseverate  that 
Your  Excellency's  Government  had  adopted  repres- 
sive measures;  rather,  I  affirmed  the  inefficacy  of  the 
efforts  made  to  induce  it  to  disregard  the  constitu- 
tional guaranty  relative  to  freedom  of  thought.  It 
is  to  be  hoped  that  in  the  future,  Peruvian  citizens 
may  continue  to  enjoy  the  exercise  of  their  rights  in 
this  realm  without  other  restrictions  than  those  im- 
posed by  the  Chilean  law. 

As  to  the  removal  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  from 
Iquique  to  Tacna,  the  projected  reduction  of  duties 
on  infports  through  the  custom-house  at  Arica,  the 
alarming  declarations  of  the  honorable  representative 
of  Chile  in  Bolivia,  to  which  I  might  add  now  the 
measures  conceived  by  the  Chilean  Delegates  in  Tacna : 
all  of  them  are  characterized  by  the  same  illegality, 
because  they  imply  the  exercise  of  a  permanent  sov- 
ereignty and  because  they  were  adopted  or  projected 
when  Chile's  rights  as  an  occupant  had  expired,  and 
with  even  greater  reason,  her  faculty  to  alter  the 
existing  normality  during'  that  period. 

Peru  does  not  discuss  the  advantages  or  disad- 
vantages of  the  measures  in  respect'  of  the  prosperity 
of  those  regions.  The  purpose  that  has  informed  them 
is  sufficient  to  cause  her  to  request  their  revocation, 
not  to  mention  their  manifest  incompatibility  with  the 
Treaty  of  Peace. 

As  to  the  indefinite  postponement  of  the  arrange- 
ments designed  to  carry  into  effect  Article  III  of  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon,  I  refer  in  all  respects  to  my  note 
of  the  nineteenth  of  the  current  month.    In  it  I  showed, 


239 

on  the  occasion  of  the  recent  vote  of  the  Chamber  of 
Deputies  on  the  Billinghurst-Latorre  Protocol,  that, 
in  spite  of  the  incessant  efforts  of  Peru,  it  has  been 
impossible  in  nine  years  to  reach  any  agreement,  be- 
cause Chile  has  rejected  all  the  combinations  proposed, 
including  arbitration. 

With  the  rejection  of  the  protocol  mentioned,  things 
have  returned  to  the  state  in  which  they  were  in  1892. 
This  seems  to  confirm  the  unswerving  purpose  of 
Chile  to  postpone  the  plebiscite  until  she  might  hold 
it  under  conditions  that  would  inevitably  cause  the 
triumph  of  her  hopes.  My  Government  will  take  no 
part  in  the  carrying  out  of  that  policy,  prejudicial  to 
its  most  legitimate  rights,  and  against  which  it  has 
taken  a  stand  in  advance. 

The  rejection  of  the  protocol — although  it  has 
brought  to  an  end,  as  Your  Excellency  says,  an  un- 
certain situation,  born  of  a  state  of  postponing  every 
agreement  as  to  the  said  Treaty — has  created  another 
situation  charged  with  the  alarm  and  distrust,  that 
disturb  the  good  harmony  and  tranquillity  that  ought 
to  exist  between  our  respective  countries.  I  regret 
not  being  able  to  accept,  as  Your  Excellency  suggests, 
the  absolute  irresponsibility  of  the  Government  of 
Chile  for  not  having  arrived  at  a  definitive  solution. 
The  history  of  the  negotiations  carried  on  hitherto 
proves  the  contrary;  and  even  to-day,  after  the  re- 
jection of  the  Billinghurst-Latorre  Protocol  ignorance 
exists  as  to  what  may  be  the  combination  contemplated 
by  Your  Excellency's  Government  designed  to  re- 
place the  proposals  successively  rejected  in  the 
course  of  the  last  nine  years.  Your  Excellency  hopes 
that  in  the  future  the  spirit  of  peace  and  harmony 
will  be  maintained  with  a  view  to  the  loyal  and  honest 
fulfillment  of  the  stipulations  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon. 


240 

Peru  has  never  deviated  from  this  line  of  conduct,  in 
spite  of  the  disillusionments  suffered  in  the  course  of 
the  negotiations.  She  is  disposed  to  follow  it  in- 
variably; but  she  exacts,  as  a  pledge  of  equity  and 
justice,  the  derogation  of  the  measures  adopted  in 
respect  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  in  order  not  to  attribute 
to  the  plebiscite  the  character  of  an  imposition. 

There  is  no  ground  on  which  to  consider  exaggerated 
my  Government's  estimate  as  to  the  measures  de- 
scribed, which  have  been  the  object  of  unfavorable 
opinions  even  within  the  membership  of  the  Chilean 
Congress.  Indeed,  the  Honorable  Deputy  from  Os- 
orno,  in  the  session  of  June  5  last,  expressed  himself 
thus: 

"I  must  declare  that,  although  so  much  applause 
has  been  bestowed  on  the  removal  of  the  Court, 
the  closing  of  the  Peruvian  schools  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  and  the  transfer  of  a  large  part  of  our  army, 
I  do  not  count  myself  among  those  that  approve 
of  the  adoption  of  those  measures,  and  this  because 
I  know  that  it  is  impossible  to  nationalize  in  a 
quarter  of  an  hour  a  territory  that  was  left  in 
abandonment  for  nineteen  or  twenty  years.  To 
achieve  the  nationalization  of  those  territories,  it 
would  have  been  necessary  to  begin  by  rendering 
the  Chilean  administration  attractive  by  means  of 
a  brilliant  personnel." 

In  view  of  the  considerations  set  forth  and  of  others 
contained  in  my  note  of  November  13,  regarding 
which  Your  Excellency  has  said  nothing,  I  again  re- 
quest, in  the  name  of  my  Government,  the  revocation 
of  the  measures  adopted  in  respect  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

I  renew  to  Your  Excellency  the  sentiments  of  my 
most  distinguished  consideration. 

Cesareo  Chacaltana. 

To  His  Excellency, 

Senor  Don  Emilio  Bello  Codecido, 

Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 


241 

Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile  to  Minister  of 
Peru  in  Chile. 

[Translation.] 
(Number  159.) 

Republic  of  Chile, 
Ministry  of  Foreign  Relations, 
Valparaiso,  February  18,  1901. 
Mr.  Minister: 

The  observations  contained  in  Your  Excellency's 
note  of  January  30  last,  in  reply  to  that  of  this  de- 
partment addressed  to  Your  Excellency  on  the  nine- 
teenth of  the  same  month,  revealed  a  deplorable  dis- 
agreement that  exists  between  that  Legation  and 
the  undersigned  in  respect  of  the  interpretation  or 
understanding  of  the  stipulations  of  the  Treaty  of 
Peace,  in  the  portion  that  refers  to  the  rights  that 
the  said  Treaty  conferred  on  Chile  in  respect  of  the 
territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

Your  Excellency  denies  to  the  Government  of  Chile 
the  right  to  adopt  those  measures,  the  principal  ob- 
ject of  which  is  to  cause  the  sovereignty  of  the  State 
to  be  respected,  to  maintain  order  and  to  enforce  the 
recognition  of  its  sovereignty  in  the  territory  that  it 
occupies  and  administers  by  virtue  of  a  solemn  treaty. 

Your  Excellency  holds  also  that  it  is  unlawful  for 
the  Government  of  Chile  to  adopt  measures  designed 
to  stimulate  the  progress  of  the  territories  it  ad- 
ministers with  an  unquestionable  title  and  to  con- 
tribute to  their  most  urgent  needs,  and  Your  Excel- 
lency attempts  to  set  up  unacceptable  distinctions  be- 
tween the  faculties  that  pertain  -to  the  Government  of 
a  country  and  those  that  would  be  characteristic  of 
a  simple  occupant  with  a  precarious  or  eventual  title. 

Finally,  Your  Excellency  insists  on  believing  that 
the  right  of  occupation  possessed  by  Chile  in  respect 


of  Tacna  and  Arica  legally  expired  on  March  28,  1894, 
on  which  date  terminated  the  ten  years  designated  in 
the  Treaty  of  Ancon  for  the  celebration  of  the  plebi- 
scite. 

This  Chancellery  can  not  accept  the  limitations  that 
Your  Excellency,  on  behalf  of  his  Government,  strives 
to  impose  on  the  faculties,  which,  within  the  spirit 
and  letter  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  belong  legitimately 
to  Chile. 

It  would  be  unprofitable  to  continue  to  discuss  the 
legality  and  correctness  of  the  measures  adopted  by 
this  Government  in  Tacna  and  Arica,  in  order  to  as- 
certain whether  they  ought  to  be  revoked  or  not. 

The  Government  of  Chile  has  adjusted,  and  will 
continue  to  adjust,  its  conduct  to  the  provisions  of 
the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  which  it  has  been  able  to  respect 
and  to  fulfil  at  all  times,  and  it  can  not  revoke  resolu- 
tions that  it  has  issued  for  a  sound  reason  and  in  the 
-?se  of  faculties  that  may  not  be  denied  and  that  it 
is  incumbent  on  it  to  exercise. 

There  would  be  no  practical  object  in  discussing 
again  the  point  relative  to  the  closing  of  the  schools  of 
Tacna  in  the  light  of  the  provisions  of  the  law  of  1860. 
If  in  those  schools  propaganda  has  been  made  against 
Chile,  if  sentiments  of  hatred  toward  this  country 
have  been  inculcated  in  their  pupils,  if  in  this  way 
the  authority  and  rights  that  Chile  exercises  have 
been  denied,  these  considerations  alone  are  sufficient 
to  justify  the  measure  of  public  order  that  the  Gov- 
ernment is  under,  obligation  to  dictate  in  any  part 
of  the  national  territory  in  which  such  acts  occur. 

The  same  would  be  true  of  all  the  measures  adopted 
by  the  Government  in  respect  of  other  functionaries 
whose  conduct  might  be  opposed  to  order  or  to  the 
sovereignty  of  the  State. 


243 

The  other  measures  that  Your  Excellency  calls 
'  i  Chileanization ' '  and  which,  nevertheless,  belong 
properly  to  the  administrative  action  of  the  Execu- 
tive, were  all  analyzed  in  detail  and  sufficiently  ex- 
plained in  my  communication  of  January  19.  Never- 
theless, Your  Excellency  protests  against  all  of  them 
and  remonstrates  against  them  to  this  Chancellery 
because  he  considers  them  beyond  the  limits  of  the 
restricted  and  precarious  sovereignty,  which,  in  Your 
Excellency's  judgment,  Chile  exercises  in  the  prov- 
inces of  Tacna  and  Arica,  and  because  the  right  of 
occupation  granted  her  by  the  Treaty  of  Peace  of 
1883  had  legally  terminated. 

I  must  consider  separately  this  double  objection, 
which  does  not  rest  on  any  of  the  clauses  of  the  Treaty, 
the  only  law  that  regulates  and  defines  the  obligations 
and  rights  of  the  countries  that  signed  it  to  establish 
the  reign  of  peace  in  them.  Chile  obtained  two  im- 
portant concessions  in  the  Treaty  of  Peace  celebrated 
with  Peru  in  respect  of  the  territories  that  constituted 
the  former  Peruvian  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

The  first  of  them  consisted  in  the  right  to  retain 
in  her  power  those  territories,  which,  until  that 
moment,  she  had  occupied  under  a  war  title;  and  the 
second,  in  the  faculty  of  administering  them  in  har- 
mony with  her  own  laws,  which  were  to  continue  in 
force  thereafter,  instead  of  the  laws  of  Peru. 

The  political  and  legal  condition  of  the  former  Peru- 
vian provinces,  whose  especial  regime  was  determined 
in  an  unmistakable  manner  by  the  Treaty  of  Ancon, 
was  consequently  modified. 

In  this  famous  Treaty  was  granted  to  Chile  a 
greater  extent  of  rights  and  expectations  since  on 
her  was  bestowed  the  occupation  of  the  territory  and 
its  administration,  without  other  limitation  than  that 


244 

of  governing  in  harmony  with  her  own  laws,  and  to 
Peru  was  granted  only  the  expectation  of  recovering 
provinces  which  the  consequences  of  an  unfortunate 
war  had  separated  from  the  dominion  of  her  au- 
thorities and  her  laws,  in  a  plebiscite  that  would  de- 
termine the  nationality  of  those  provinces. 

Granted  this  fundamental  antecedent,  it  is  evident 
and  unquestionable  that  Chile  has  the  right  to  per- 
form all  the  political  and  administrative  acts  that 
are  authorized  by  the  national  laws.  If  Chilean  laws 
are  the  sole  manifestation  and  exercise  of  the  sov- 
ereignty of  Chile,  it  is  also  evident  and  unquestionable 
that  in  this  case  it  is  not  an  affair  of  an  incomplete 
or  restricted  sovereignty,  in  spite  of  the  circumstance 
that  the  rights  of  Chile  are  subordinated,  in  respect 
of  their  future  exercise,  to  the  holding  of  a  plebiscite. 

It  is  indubitable  then  that,  according  to  the  regime 
established  in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  Chile  preserves 
her  character  of  sovereign  in  Tacna  and  Arica  until 
the  plebiscitary  vote  would  modify  the  present  situa- 
tion. 

The  full  exercise  of  sovereignty  is  not  incompatible 
with  the  eventuality  that  the  territory  in  which  it  is 
exercised  may  pass  later  under  the  dominion  of  an- 
other nation.  Because  the  mere  fact  that  the  ter- 
ritory of  Tacna  and  Arica  is  subject  to  Chilean 
legislation,  the  exercise  of  Chilean  sovereignty,  with- 
out the  limitations  that  Your  Excellency  attempts  to 
establish,  was  recognized. 

I  now  proceed  to  examine  the  point  relative  to  the 
right  of  Chile  to  continue  to  occupy  the  territories 
of  Tacna  and  Arica  after  the  expiration  of  the  ten 
years  designated  in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  for  the  hold- 
ing of  the  plebiscite. 

According  to  the  interpretation  that  Your  Excel- 
lency gives  to  Clause  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace,  the 


245 

ten  years  fixed  in  it  for  the  holding  of  the  plebi- 
scite determine  also  the  period  of  Chilean  occupation, 
and  Your  Excellency  believes,  therefore,  that  the  said 
occupation  must  have  ceased  legally  on  March  28,  1894. 

Your  Excellency  adds  that  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Relations  of  Chile  in  1894  gave  this  same  interpre- 
tation to  the  Treaty,  when  he  explained,  in  a  con- 
ference celebrated  with  the  representative  of  Peru 
in  Santiago,  the  purpose  of  the  Government  in  re- 
questing of  Peru  a  prorogation  that  Your  Excellency's 
Government  has  never  been  disposed  to  accept. 

It  is  unquestionable  that  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  either 
did  not  for  see  the  contingency  that,  after  the  expira- 
tion of  the  period  of  ten  years,  the  plebiscite  would 
not  be  held,  or  that  it  did  not  desire,  in  that  emer- 
gency, to  modify  the  situation  in  the  territories  the 
occupation  of  which  was  granted  to  Chile.  On  either 
hypothesis  it  is  necessary  to  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  nothing  authorizes  the  demand  that  Chile  deliver 
to  Peru  territories  that  may  only  be  acquired  by 
virtue  of  a  plebiscitary  vote  that  shall  be  favorable 
to  her,  since  this  would  simply  be  equivalent  to  as- 
suming as  settled  at  once,  in  her  favor,  the  question 
that  is  to-day  in  dispute  between  the  Chancelleries  of 
Chile  and  Peru  and  that  affects  great  interests  of 
both  countries. 

In  order  that  the  delivery  of  the  territory  occupied 
by  Chile  may  be  effected,  it  is  necessary  that  the  con- 
dition indicated  in  the  Treaty  shall  be  fulfilled,  it  is 
necessary  to  determine  previously  the  definitive 
nationality  of  the  said  territory,  or,"  rather,  it  is  neces- 
sary that  there  shall  be  a  new  agreement  between 
the  interested  Governments  that  shall  modify  the  pro- 
visions of  the  Treaty  of  Peace. 

The  acceptance  of  the  theory  upheld  by  Your  Ex- 
cellency would  be  tantamount  to   annulling,   leaying 


246 

without  effect  or  at  least  altering  substantially  those 
provisions,  and  suppressing,  for  the  exclusive  benefit 
of  Peru,  the  advantages  that  they  conferred  on  Chile, 
to  strengthen  her  claims  to  the  definitive  dominion 
of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

Indeed,  if  consideration  be  given  to  what  may  have 
been  the  purpose  kept  in  view  by  the  negotiators  of 
the  Treaty  of  Ancon  in  conceding  to  Chile  the  right 
to  continue  to  occupy  the  territory  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  and  of  administering  it  in  pursuance  of  her 
laws,  it  may  easily  be  understood  that  my  country 
could  not  rob  herself  of  these  rights,  just  as  it  has 
not  shirked  the  obligations  that  are  inherent  to  their 
exercise,  unless  an  express  provision  of  the  Treaty 
of  Peace  should  so  establish  or  unless  a  new  conven- 
tion, as  solemn  as  that  Treaty,  should  be  adopted. 

There  is  no  record  in  the  archives  of  this  Chancel- 
lery of  any  proposal  such  as  the  one  Your  Excellency 
attributes  to  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of 
Chile  in  1894,  Senor  Sanchez  Fontecilla,  to  prorogue 
the  period  of  ten  years  established  by  the  Treaty  of 
Peace.  With  all  credit  to  Your  Excellency's  veracity 
and  to  the  correctness  of  his  information,  I  must  sup- 
pose either  that  it  is  a  question  of  a  bad  understand- 
ing of  the  words  uttered  in  a  conference  by  Senor 
Sanchez  Fontecilla  to  which  was  attached  a  scope  or 
meaning  different  from  the  one  they  possessed,  or 
that  they  might  have  to  refer  to  the  study  of  a  new 
arrangement  for  changing  the  date  of  the  plebiscite  or 
for  seeking  a  different  solution  of  the  problem  rela- 
tive to  the  fulfillment  of  Clause  III  of  the  Treaty  of 
Peace. 

Chile  therefore  retains  in  her  power  the  territories 
of  Tacna  and  Arica  with  a  perfect  right  and  for  a 
very  just  reason.     The  period  of  ten  years  was  set 


247 

forth  in  order  to  designate  a  date  after  which  the  plebi- 
scite was  to  be  held,  and  not  to  cause  to  cease  an 
occupation  that  pertains  to  Chile,  until  a  plebiscitary 
decision  adverse  to  her  might  be  reached,  and  that  she 
may  not  pass  on  to  an  unknown  authority,  not  de- 
termined in  the  very  Treaty  that  granted  the  said 
occupation. 

Whence  is  derived  then  the  demand  of  Peru  that 
Chile  shall  abandon  the  territories  she  occupies  pur- 
suant to  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  and  that  she  shall  return 
them  to  the  Peruvian  dominion  without  the  necessary 
title,  which  can  only  be  bestowed  upon  her  by  the 
will  of  their  inhabitants  expressed  in  a  plebiscite? 

Your  Excellency,  however,  formulates  still  another 
charge  against  this  Government,  and  I  ought  to  take  it 
into  consideration  here  in  order  to  answer  it  and  in 
order  to  reply,  at  the  same  time,  to  the  observations 
of  Your  Excellency's  note  of  January  19,  last. 

Your  Excellency,  referring  to  the  resolution  re- 
cently adopted  by  the  Honorable  Chamber  of  Deputies 
of  Chile  in  respect  to  the  Billinghurst-Latorre  Pro- 
tocol, expresses  the  judgment  that  is  as  impassioned 
as  it  is  unjust  regarding  the  meaning  of  this  vote 
and  the  design  entertained  by  this  Chancellery  as  to 
the  problem  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

The  undersigned  must  reject  energetically  the 
opinions  that  Your-  Excellency  advances  relative  to 
the  proceedings  of  this  Government,* when  Your  Ex- 
cellency considers  that  they  are  designed  to  put  into 
practice  a  dilatory  and  arbitrary  policy  and  one  op- 
posed to  every  principle  of  equity  and  justice. 

Your  Excellency  bases  his  affirmations  on  the  fact 
that  the  protocol  adjusted  on  April  16,  1898,  by  the 
plenipotentiaries  Senores  Billinghurst  and  Latorre  in 
order  to  carry  into  effect  the  plebiscite  stipulated  in 


248 

the  Treaty  of  Peace  of  1883  were  not  sanctioned  in 
the  Chilean  Chamber  of  Deputies,  and  on  the  unfavor- 
able result  reached,  by  the  earlier  negotiations  which, 
for  the  same  purpose,  had  been  carried  on  in  1892, 
1893,  1894  and  later  years. 

There  is  no  justice  whatsoever  in  Your  Excellency's 
charge  in  attributing  to  Chile  the  design  to  frustrate 
any  arrangement  that  might  tend  to  an  early,  friendly 
and  equitable  solution,  in  order  to  leave  to  time  the 
work  of  incorporating  the  territories  in  question  de- 
finitively with  Chile. 

Numerous  antecedents  exist  in  the  Chancelleries  of 
Chile  and  Peru  that  testify  to  the  efforts  made  by 
Chile  on  different  occasions  to  arrive  at  a  settlement 
honorable  to  both  nations. 

If  the  negotiations  have  suffered  a  slow  development 
and  at  times  considerable  interruptions,  this  fact 
may  not  be  laid  at  Chile's  door,  but  it  ought  to  be 
explained  loyally  by  appeal  to  events  which,  in  one 
and  the  other  country,  have  occurred  independently 
of  the  will  of  the  Governments. 

If,  too,  the  same  negotiations  have  not  reached  a  con- 
clusion entirely  satisfactory  to  Peru,  this  is  due,  not 
to  the  evil  intentions  attributed  to  Chile,  but  to  the 
necessity  that  the  latter  is  also  under  to  safeguard 
her  interests,  her  rights  and  her  legitimate  claims. 

My  Government  does  not  shrink  from  a  friendly 
understanding  or'  spare  its  efforts  to  secure  an  early 
settlement  of  the  problem  pending. 

It  has  always  been  disposed  to  seek  the  way  of 
reconciliation  and  harmony,  and  in  this  realm  it  has 
gone,  as  I  have  already  had  occasion  to  express  to 
Your  Excellency,  beyond  the  scope  of  its  constitu- 
tional powers. 

The  vote  of  the  Honorable  Chamber  of  Deputies  in 
reference  to  the  Billinghurst-Latorre  protocol,  after 


249 

the  prolonged  and  agitated  discussion  to  which  it  gave 
rise  within  its  body,  when  it  was  submitted  to  its  con- 
sideration in  1898,  and  after  the  unyielding  opposition 
to  its  approval  that  it  displayed  at  that  time,  can  not 
have  surprised  Your  Excellency's  Government.  It 
must  have  been  the  natural  consequence  of  the  judg- 
ment formed  by  that  branch  of  the  legislative  power 
as  to  an  international  convention  which,  in  its  opinion, 
did  not  sufficiently  safeguard  the  interests  of  the 
country,  and  which  conceded  to  Peru  more  than  Chile 
could  legitimately  concede  to  her.  Its  meaning  has 
been  none  other  than  that  of  signifying  the  necessity 
of  opening  new  negotiations  and  of  stimulating  the 
action  of  the  Government  for  the  purpose  of  seeking 
to  introduce  into  that  convention  the  necessary  mod- 
ifications to  enable  it  to  obtain  legislative  sanction. 

Consequently  it  is  demonstrated  that  the  Govern- 
ment of  Chile  has  carried  its  good  will  in  respect  of 
Peru  as  far  as  to  conclude  a  pact  that  was  wholly 
favorable  to  the  interests  of  that  nation,  and  that 
the  charge  that  Your  Excellency  formulates  as  to  the 
intentions  and  proceedings  that  Your  Excellency  at- 
tributes to  it  is  unjustifiable. 

It  would  be  a  vain  and  ungrateful  task  to  continue 
in  the  1 3alm  of  recriminations  and  reciprocal  charges. 

My  Government,  inspired  by  sentiments  of  friendly 
confraternity  and  peace,  invited  Your  Excellency's 
to  abandon  the  harsh  and  odious  realm  in  which 
Your  Excellency,  unfortunately,  has  sought  to  place 
the  discussion  of  the  problem  relative  to  the  wisest 
and  most  correct  form  that  ought  to  be  given  to  the 
fulfilment  of  clause  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon. 

The  interests  and  expediencies  of  the  two  countries 
will  be  better  consulted  by  the  calm  and  dispassionate 
study  of  the  true  situation  that  the  conventions  that 
brought  the  state  of  war  to  an  end  assigned  to  each 


250 

country,  and  of  the  rights  that  each  ought  to  uphold 
without  permitting  herself  to  be  carried  away  by  the 
exaggerations  of  patriotic  sentiment,  which,  although 
worthy  of  all  respect,  contribute  at  times  to  the  per- 
turbation of  the  serene  judgment  of  statesmen. 

In  the  realm  of  equity  and  justice,  our  respective 
Chancelleries  are  to  find  the  accord  that  will  enable- 
the  two  countries  to  settle  honorably  their  present 
difficulties  and  to  reestablish  between  them  the  most 
complete  and  frank  cordiality  of  relations. 

I  renew  to  Your  Excellency  the  assurances  of  my 
most  distinguished  consideration. 

Emilio  Bello. 
To  His  Excellency, 

Senor  Don  Cesareo  Chacaltana, 
Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipo- 
tentiarv  of  Peru. 


Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Minister  of  Foreign  Be- 
lations  of  Chile. 

[Translation.] 
(Number  9.) 

Legation  oe  Peru, 
Santiago,  March  7,  1901. 
Mr.   Minister  : 

The  matters  relative  to  the  measures  adopted  by 
the  Government  of  Your  Excellency  in  the  territories 
of  Tacna  and  Arica  and  the  indefinite  postponement 
of  the  plebiscite  provided  for  in  the  Treaty  of  Peace 
of  1883,  have  been  sufficiently  discussed  between  that 
Ministry  and  this  Legation. 

Having  explained,  on  my  part,  the  way  of  thinking 
of  my  Government  in  connection  with  these  matters, 
I  have  nothing  new  of  importance  to  add  to  what 


251 

was  made  manifest  in  my  earlier  communications.  It 
is  my  duty,  however,  to  briefly  rectify  some  of  the 
ideas  expressed  in  the  communication  of  that  Min- 
istry of  the  18th  of  last  month. 

With  regard  to  the  closing  of  the  schools  governed 
by  Peruvian  teachers,  that  Department  has  preferred 
not  to  take  into  account  the  guarantees  granted,  in 
the  matter  of  education,  by  the  law  of  November  24, 
1860,  to  persons  of  all  nationalities;  it  insists  only 
in  accusing  the  teachers  of  having  inculcated  into 
the  pupils  sentiments  of  hatred  against  Chile  and  of 
having  ignored  the  authority  and  the  rights  of  this 
Republic. 

My  Government,  as  I  have  stated  repeatedly,  de- 
fends the  legitimate  rights  of  Peruvians,  recognized 
and  protected  by  the  laws  of  Chile.  If  any  abuse 
has  been  practised,  it  does  not  intercede  with  im- 
punity, but  neither  can  it  accept  that*  in  order  to  curb 
them,  the  guarantees  granted  by  said  laws  be  disre- 
garded absolutely.  If  penalties  of  a  summary  and 
simply  administrative  form  cannot  be  imposed  upon 
the  authors  of  the  greater  transgressions,  much  less 
can  action  of  this  kind  be  taken  in  connection  with 
teachers  who,  as  shown  in  my  communication  of  Jan- 
uary 30 th,  last,  have  given  no  cause  whatever  to  war- 
rant their  being  discharged  or  being  refused  the  neces- . 
sary  permission  to  exercise  their  honorable  mission. 

Moreover,  the  teachers  have  not  ignored  the  author- 
ity and  rights  of  Chile  granted  her  by  the  Treaty  of 
Ancon.  They  have  lived  subject  and  resigned  to  the 
consequences  of  that  pact,  without  renouncing,  for 
all  that,  the  right  to  declare  their  invariable  senti- 
ments in  favor  of  Peruvian  nationality.  There  is  no 
teacher  of  honorable  and  lofty  views  who  does  not 
endeavor  to  inculcate  into  his  pupils  sentiments   of 


9*9 


love  and  self-denial  in  favor  of  their  fatherland.  This 
is  one  of  the  most  elementary  and  sacred  duties.  If, 
in  fulfilling  it,  they  have  been  guilty  of  unbecoming 
exaggerations,  they  should  have  been  curbed  accord- 
ing to  law,  but  not  in  any  other  way. 

In  order  to  justify  the  other  measures  adopted  in 
Tacna  and  Arica,  the  communication  of  that  Ministry 
affirms  that  Chile  obtained  two  important  concessions 
in  the  Treaty  of  Peace  celebrated  with  Peru,  and  adds : 

"The  first  consisted  in  the  right  to  retain  in 
its  power  those  territories  occupied  up  to  that 
time  under  a  military  title. " 

In  order  to  give  this  concession  its  true  scope,  I 
must  add,  on  my  part,  that  the  right  to  keep  the 
above  mentioned  territories  was  not  for  an  indefinite 
period  but  for  the  limited  period  of  ten  years,  which 
terminated  on  March  28,  1894.  Article  III  of  the 
Treaty  of  Peace,  clear  and  explicit  on  this  point,  reads 
textually : 

"The  territory  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and 
Arica,  bound  on  the  north  by  the  Sama  River, 
from  its  source  in  the  cordilleras  conterminous 
with  Bolivia,  to  its  outlet  to  the  sea ;  on  the  south 
by  the  ravine  and  River  Camarones ;  on  the  east 
by  the  Republic  of  Bolivia ;  and  on  the  west  by 
the  Pacific  Ocean,  will  continue  in  the  possession 
of  Chile  and  subject  to  Chilean  legislation  and 
authorities  for  a  period  of  ten  years,  counted 
from  the  date  of  the  ratification  of  the  present 
Treaty  of  Peace.' ' 

The  term  of  occupation  is  definite,  as  may  be  seen, 
and  was  not  to  exceed  ten  years.  The  indefinite  oc- 
cupation advocated  by  the  Government  of  Your  Ex- 
cellency is  incompatible  with  the  agreement  of  a  fixed 


time.  The  rights  of  Chile  as  an  occupant  ceased  on 
March  28,  1894. 

In  order  to  weaken  the  inevitable  force  of  this  argu- 
ment, the  honorable  predecessor  of  Your  Excellency 
has  stated  that  Chile  cannot  return  to  Peru  the  above 
mentioned  territories  since  that  would  amount  to  giv- 
ing at  once,  as  decided  in  favor  of  Peru,  that  which 
must  be  effected  by  the  plebiscite.  That  is  not  so, 
however.  Peru,  in  contending  that  Chile  is  unduly  oc- 
cupying the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  has  not 
pretended  and  does  not  pretend  to  make  an  abstrac- 
tion of  the  plebiscite.  This  act  would  always  be  car- 
ried out  in  the  form  agreed  upon  by  both  Govern- 
ments. If  the  fact  of  Chile's  continuing  to  possess 
them,  contrary  to  that  which  was  expressly  provided, 
is  not  an  impediment,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  Your  Excellency,  to  the  holding  of  the  plebi- 
scite, why  must  the  fact  that  Peru  possess  them  be 
so?  Peru,  notwithstanding,  disposed  as  it  has  been, 
to  place  itself  on  the  ground  of  conciliation,  prescind- 
ing its  incontestible  rights  along  these  lines,  proposed 
in  1893,  as  I  recalled  in  my  communication  of  January 
19th,  the  delivery  of  the  aforementioned  territories 
to  a  third  power  in  order  to  undertake  the  plebiscite 
under  its  guarantee;  which  was  not  accepted  by  the 
Government  of  Chile. 

According  to  the  same  note  of  that  office,  for  the 
delivery  of  the  territory  occupied  by  Chile,  the  ful- 
fillment of  the  condition  provided  for  in  the  Treaty 
would  be  necessary,  that  is,  the  previous  determina- 
tion of  the  definite  nationality  of  the  above  mentioned 
territories. 

The  Treaty  of  Peace  has  not  subjected  in  any  of  its 
clauses  the  term  of  Chilean  occupation  to  the  realiza- 
tion of  the  plebiscite ;  it  subjected  it  only  and  exclu- 
sively to  the  already  completed  period  of  ten  years. 


254 

It  likewise  affirms  that  there  is  no  record,  in  the 
tiles  of  the  Chilean  Chancellery,  of  the  proposal  made 
by  Sr.  Sanchez  Fontecilla  in  order  to  obtain  an  exten- 
sion of  the  Chilean  occupation  until  1898,  the  as- 
sertions contained  in  my  previous  communications  in 
this  regard  being  attributed  to  a  wrong  interpretation 
of  the  words  pronounced  by  that  official. 

T  can  affirm  that  no  such  misinterpretation  has  ex- 
isted. That  proposal  is  contained  in  the  official  docu- 
ments proceeding  from  the  Peruvian  Chancellery,  pub- 
lished about  five  years  ago  in  the  Report  of  Foreign 
Affairs  of  that  country,  and  in  the  newspapers  of 
Lima.  It  must  have  been  known  by  the  high  officials 
of  the  Government  of  Your  Excellency,  and  its  ac- 
curacy has  not  been  contradicted  up  to  the  present. 

In  fact,  the  Plenipotentiary  of  Peru  in  Chile,  Sr. 
Ribeyro,  in  giving  an  account  to  his  Government  of 
a  conference  with  Sr.  Sanchez  Fontecilla,  in  a  com- 
munication dated  September  28,  1894,  stated  the  fol- 
lowing : 

1  'He  indicated  to  me,  in  the  course  of  the  con- 
ference, that  Sr.  Lira  had  instructions  to  request 
from  our  Chancellery  an  extension  of  the  period 
of  occupation,  only  in  order  to  relieve  the  wor- 
risome pressure  that  the  situation  imposed  upon 
the  question;  but  without  prejudice  to  negotia- 
ting and  to  realizing  the  plebiscite  and  to  deliv- 
ering the  territory,  in  accordance  with  its  result, 
even  before  the  expiration  of  the  extension 
granted. ' ' 

"I  limited  myself  to  state  to  him  in  this  connec- 
tion that  I  did  not  know  what  answer  my  Govern- 
ment would  give  to  this  indication,  if  it  were  made 
to  it ;  but  that,  on  my  part,  I  thought  that  it  would 
not  be  accepted,  and  that  I  even  seemed  to  recall 
that  a  suggestion  made  before  relative  to  the  same 
matter,  in  a  confidential  way,  had  not  been  consid- 
ered." 


255 

Sr.  Ribeyro,  in  a  communication  dated  October  19th 
of  the  same  year,  added: 

' '  Sr.  Sanchez,  in  answer  to  my  inquiries,  began 
by  stating  that,  in  our  previous  conference,  he 
had  forgotten  to  show  me  a  memorandum,  or  aide 
memoire,  which  contained  the  series  of  proposals 
which,  in  his  judgment,  could  serve  as  bases  for 
discussion,  pointing  out  to  me  that  they  were  in 
the  form  of  questions,  in  order  that,  if  they  were 
accepted  in  this  form  or  in  another,  they  be  con- 
verted, without  further  procedure  into  a  proto- 
col which  would  abridge  them  as  a  formal  cove- 
nant." 

" He  proceeded,  then,  to  show  me  the  memo- 
randum containing  the  eight  proposals  above  in- 
dicated, reduced  to  the  points  that  I  have  com- 
municated to  Your  Excellency  in  my  telegram  of 
the  28th  ultimo  and  in  my  communication,  No. 
70,  of  the  same  date.  Among  them  is  the  pro- 
posal relative  to  the  indemnity,  the  amount  of 
which  is  left  blank,  and  that  which  refers  to  the 
extension  oft  the  time  of  occupation  up  to  March, 
1898,  if  I  am  not  mistaken  in  the  month,  because 
of  the  short  time  we  have  at  our  disposal." 

In  a  communication  dated  October  23d  of  the  same 
year,  Sr.  Ribeyro  expressed  himself  in  the  following 

way: 

"  After  having  received  at  the  legation  the  mem- 
orandum of  the  proposals  or  bases  which  Sr. 
Sanchez  Fontecilla  sent  me  and  a  copy  of  which 
I  enclose  herewith,  I  requested,  etc." 

At  the  end  of  this  communication  the  aforemen- 
tioned memorandum  was  published  in  the  mentioned 
Report  of  Foreign  Affairs,  the  seventh  proposal  of 
which  reads  as  follows  i 

"The  term  of  ten  years  agreed  upon  in  Article 
III  of  the  Treatv  of  Ancon  is  extended  up  to 
March  28,  1898." 


256 

As  Your  Excellency  may  see,  the  accuracy  of  my 
declarations  is  insured  not  only  by  the  reports  sub- 
mitted in  due  course  by  the  Peruvian  Plenipotentiary, 
Sr.  Ribeyro,  but  also  by  the  text  of  a  memorandum 
drafted  and  presented  by  Sr.  Sanchez  Fontecilla. 

Before  concluding,  I  must  state  that  I  have  not 
cherished,  as  the  predecessor  of  Your  Excellency  sup- 
poses, the  purpose  of  placing  this  discussion  on  harsh 
and  odious  ground.  I  have  limited  myself  to  oppos- 
ing with  truth  and  firmness,  but  in  due  form,  the 
illegal  measures  adopted  in  Tacna  and  Arica  and  their 
apparent  purpose,  as  well  as  to  requesting  their  ab- 
rogation. If  in  this  there  may  be  harshness  or  hatred, 
it  is  due  undoubtedly  not  to  the  just  demands  formu- 
lated in  the  name  of  my  Government,  but  to  the  char- 
acter of  the  facts  which  have  originated  them. 

These  facts  persisting,  I  uphold,  in  the  name  of 
my  Government,  the  declarations  recorded  in  my  pre- 
vious communications. 

I  renew  to  Your  Excellency  the  assurances  of  my 
most  distinguished  consideration. 

Cesakeo  Chacaltana. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Chile. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Chile  to  Minister  of 
Peru  in  Chile. 


(Number  218.) 


[Translation.] 

Santiago,  March  13,  1901. 


Mr..  Minister: 

Almost  simultaneously  with  the  receipt  of  your 
communication  of  the  9th  instant,  in  which  Your  Ex- 
cellency requests  an  interview  with  His  Excellency  the 


257 

President  of  the  Republic  to  present  your  letter  of 
recall,  there  has  been  received  the  communication 
which  on  the  7th  instant  Your  Excellency  addressed 
to  this  Department  with  the  object  of  making  some 
rectifications  to  that  which  my  honorable  predecessor 
sent  to  that  Legation  under  date  of  the  19th  ultimo. 

Referring  to  the  last  observations  of  Your  Excel- 
lency relative  to  a  matter  which,  according  to  your 
statement,  has  been  sufficiently  discussed  between  that 
Legation  and  this  office,  I  must  limit  myself  to  record- 
ing once  more,  the  rectitude  of  the  proposals  which 
the  Chancellery  of  Chile  has  observed  and  will  con- 
tinue to  observe  relative  to  the  fulfillment  of  Article 
III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon. 

Notwithstanding  the  insistence  of  the  Legation  to 
attribute  to  Chile  an  attitude  which  is  not  in  confor- 
mity with  her  right  nor  with  the  stipulations  of  the 
aforementioned  Treaty,  my  Government  judges  that 
there  exists  no  reason  whatever  that  can  justify  the 
appreciations  of  Your  Excellency. 

The  bases  on  which  the  title  of  our  country  rests  to 
continue  in  the  occupation  of  the  territories  of  Tacna 
and  Arica  antil  there  takes  place  the  plebiscite  which 
must  decide  their  definite  nationality,  as  well  as  those 
which  have  served  as  foundation  for  the  several  meas- 
ures of  administrative  order,  are  contained  in  the 
various  communications  of  my  honorable  predecessor, 
especially  in  that  of  February  19th,  last,  and  I  find 
nothing  in  the  recent  communication  of  Your  Excel- 
lency which  has  not  been  duly  considered  by  the 
former. 

Proof  was  likewise  given  of  the  desires  of  my  Gov- 
ernment to  seek  a  prompt  and  friendly  solution  which 
would  put  an  honorable  end  to  the  questions  pending 
and  would  render  closer  the  ties  which  bind  Peru  and 
Chile. 


258 

It  would  be  especially  gratifying  to  me  to  take  up 
with  Your  Excellency  such  an  interesting  matter  and 
to  engage  myself  to  carry  out  in  its  spirit,  as  that  of 
your  illustrious  Government,  the  conviction  that  my 
Government  is  inspired  only  by  a  legitimate  concep- 
tion of  the  rights  of  the  Chilean  people  and  the  most 
sincere  desire  that  they  may  not  be  found  to  be  in 
contradiction  to  those '  which  a  sister  nation  believes 
to  have. 

I  lament,  however,  that  the  approaching  and  re- 
grettable departure  of  Your  Excellency  mil  not  per- 
mit you  to  cooperate  with  the  undersigned  in  the  work 
of  peace  and  cordiality  which  he  represents  and  serve 
the  true  interests  of  both  countries. 

I  take  pleasure  in  renewing  to  Your  Excellency  the 
assurances  of  my  high  consideration. 

R.  Silva  Cruz. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister 
Plenipotentiary  of  Peru. 


Circular  of  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  to 
Ministers  of  Foreign  Relations  Abroad. 

Ministry  of  Foreign  Relations, 

Lima,  May  26, 1901. 
Mr.  Minister: 

The  war  of  1879  between  Peru  and  Chile,  which  the 
latter  declared  at  the  time  when  Peru,  complying  with 
the  sacred  duties  imposed  by  American  harmony,  and 
the  obligations  of  the  treaty  of  defensive  alliance  of 
February  6,  1873,  was  interposing  its  friendly  media- 
tion between  Chile  and  Bolivia,  ended  with  the  Treaty 


259 

of  Peace  of  October  20,  1883,  which  was  forced  upon 
Peru  after  its  armies  had  been  conquered,  its  fleet  de- 
stroyed, and  its  sources  of  wealth  carried  away,  when 
the  economic  destruction  of  the  Republic  was  begin- 
ning to  make  that  same  military  occupation  of  the  ter- 
ritory, which  Chile  had  continued  for  three  years,  im- 
possible. 

In  this  Treaty,  besides  the  definitive  surrender  of  the 
province  of  Tarapaca,  whose  wealth  constituted  an 
exorbitant  indemnification  of  war,  the  following  was 
set  forth: 

"The  territory  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and 
Arica,  bounded  on  the  north  by  the  Sama  River, 
from  its  source  in  the  Cordillera  on  the  frontier 
of  Bolivia  to  its  mouth  at  the  sea;  on  the  south  by 
the  ravine  and  River  Camarones ;  on  the  east  by 
the  Republic  of  Bolivia;  and  on  the  west  by  the 
Pacific  Ocean,  shall  continue  in  the  possession  of 
Chile,  subject  to  Chilean  law  and  authority,  dur- 
ing a  period  of  ten  years,  to  be  reckoned  from  the 
date  of  the  ratification  of  the  present  Treaty  of 
Peace.  After  the  expiration  of  that  term,  a  plebis- 
cite will  decide,  by  popular  vote,  whether  the  ter- 
ritory of  the  above-mentioned  provinces  will  re- 
main definitively  under  the  dominion  and  sov- 
ereignty of  Chile,  or  continue  to  form  a  part  of 
Peru.  Either  of  the  two  countries  to  which  the 
provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica-  may  remain  an- 
nexed will  pay  to  the  other  ten  millions  of  Chile 
silver  dollars,  or  Peruvian  soles  of  the  same 
weight  and  fineness.' ' 

The  design  to  take  provisional  possession  of  the 
territory,  to  which  this  clause  refers,  arose  in  Chile  im- 
mediately after  the  military  occupation  of  Tarapaca, 
as  a  means  for  assuring  possession  of  this  province, 


260 

overthrowing  the  military  power  of  Peru  for  the  time 
which  was  necessary  in  order  that  Chile  might  defy  it 
without  any  danger.  (Conferences  of  Arica  and  ses- 
sions of  the  Chilean  legislative  bodies  of  1880.) 

The  triumphs  which  Chile  later  attained  awoke 
greater  ambitions;  and  a  year  later,  since  1881,  the 
cession  of  Tacna  and  Arica  was  a  demand  presented 
as  a  condition  necessary  for  peace,  in  the  negotiations 
which  were  opened  during  the  two  years  following. 

The  constant  refusal  of  Peru  to  agree  to  that  condi- 
tion, which  did  not  yet  acknowledge  the  previously 
invoked  necessity  for  preventing  the  possession  of 
Tarapaca  from  being  disturbed,  showed  Chile  that  it 
was  impossible  to  bring  about  peace  without  reducing 
its  demands  to  the  terms  of  the  clause  set  forth,  ac- 
cording to  which  Peru  maintains  its  dominion  over 
the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica;  Chile  acquired  the 
right  to  occupy  them  for  ten  years;  and  both  agreed 
that  the  plebiscite  should  decide  the  nationality  of 
those  territories,  at  the  end  of  the  period  of  occupation. 

There  it  was  also  agreed  that  a  protocol,  which 
should  be  considered  an  integral  part  of  the  Treaty  of 
Peace,  should  determine  the  way  in  which  the  plebiscite 
should  be  carried  out  and  the  terms  and  times  on  which 
the  sum  of  ten  millions  fixed  as  indemnification,  should 
be  paid.  One  country  or  the  other,  then,  must  proceed 
with  the  performance  of  the  postponed  settlement,  in 
the  shortest  time  possible,  before  the  time  provided 
for  the  occupation  should  expire,  that  is,  before  March 
28, 1894. 

Your  Excellency  knows  the  circumstances  which, 
after  signing  the  Treaty  of  Peace  and  in  the  years  im- 
mediately following,  prevented  Peru  from  promoting 
the  respective  negotiations.    To  begin  them  then  would 


261 

have  been  to  expose  the  stability  of  peace  to  grave 
dangers. 

At  this  time  there  arose  between  Peru  and  Chile  the 
vexatious  discussions  arising  out  of  the  demand  of  the 
creditors  of  the  former  that  the  foreign  debt  be  can- 
celled, and  from  the  opposition  of  the  latter,  notwith- 
standing the  clauses  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace,  in  consid- 
ering itself  responsible  for  the  payment  of  the  debts 
guaranteed  by  the  guano  and  the  rest  of  the  products 
of  Tarapaca.  This  affair  lasted  from  1885  until  1892, 
disturbing  the  harmony  in  the  relations  of  both  states 
and,  thereby  rendering  impossible  the  fulfilling  of  the 
plans  for  such  delicate  and  grave  negotiations  as  those 
which  must  lead  to  the  execution  of  the  plebiscite. 

That  situation  aided  the  design  to  disregard  the  pro- 
visions contained  in  the  Treaty  of  Peace.  And  thus, 
at  the  time  of  organizing  the  delegations  and  subdele- 
gations,  the  way  in  which  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  were  to  be  administered  according  to  Chilean 
law,  there  was  incorporated  in  the  territory,  subject 
to  the  temporary  occupation  of  Chile,  a  part  of  the 
province  of  Tar  at  a,  adjoining  Tacna,  with  its  towns 
and  villages  situated  north  of  the  Sama  River,  which 
is  the  boundary  pointed  out  in  Article  III. 

In  order  to  explain  the  transgression  it  was  shown 
that  the  ravine  by  the  same  name  did  not  belong  to  the 
real  Sama  River,  but  to  another  farther  north,  which 
the  demarkation  established  by  Peruvian  law,  which 
must  be  applied  solely  in  this  case,  left  very  far  from 
the  territory  given  up  to  the  ten  years'  occupation. 
Vainly  Peru  urged  the  evacuation  of  Tarata.  Some 
of  the  documents  attached  show  the  efforts  made  to 
bring  it  about  and  how  the  indifference  of  Chile, 
which  was  as  offensive  and  persistent  as  the  former 
were  legitimate  and  constant,  frustrated  it. 


262 

Years  later,  in  1889  and  1890,  by  reason  of  the  diffi- 
culties in  the  cancellation  of  the  foreign  debt,  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Chile  thought  that  the  time  had  arrived 
for  obtaining  additional  advantages  which  it  had  not 
received  in  the  peace  negotiations,  and  repeatedly  pro- 
posed to  this  Government  the  immediate  giving  up  of 
Tacna  and  Arica,  in  exchange  for  the  immediate  pay- 
ment of  several  million  soles ;  a  proposition  which,  as 
was  to  be  hoped  was  firmly  and  unqualifiedly  rejected. 

Things  stood  thus,  and  then  in  1892,  the  Government 
of  Chile,  which  was  going  outside  of  the  Treaty  which 
it  also  imposed,  and  in  view  of  the  refusal  of  Peru  to 
accept  any  settlement  which  was  not  in  strict  accord 
with  the  provisions  of  that  Treaty,  celebrated  on  July 
23,  of  that  year,  the  protocol  called  Errazuriz-Bacourt. 
There,  after  disregarding  previous  compromises  with 
Peru  with  regard  to  the  rights  of  its  creditors  and  of 
the  authority  to  examine  the  assets  for  the  distribution 
of  the  amounts  which  were  deposited  in  the  Bank  of 
England,  Chile  attempted,  in  a  way  which  is  without 
precedent  to  dispose  in  favor  of  the  French  creditors 
of  the  sum  of  fourteen  million  soles,  the  amount  to 
which  Chile  was  proposing  to  raise  the  indemnity,  if 
the  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica  remained  definitely 
included  under  the  dominion  and  sovereignty  of  Chile. 
This  pact,  from  which  the  tribunal  which  is  function- 
ing in  Berne  originated,  was  timely  protested  by  Peru, 
which  later  advised  the  Government  of  the  Swiss  Con- 
federation as  to  her  way  of  looking  at  the  subject  and 
the  limit  to. which,  in  its  judgment,  the  acts  of  that 
tribunal  could  go. 

In  spite  of  the  dangers  which  then  existed,  it  was 
necessary  to  negotiate  the  protocol  for  the  plebiscite 
restoring  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  in  order 
to  put  an  end  to  a  situation  permitting  incurred  obliga- 


263 

tions  to  be  overlooked  and  in  order  to  eliminate  the 
difficulties  which  might  hinder,  at  the  proper  moment, 
the  execution  of  that  sovereign  act,  the  date  of  which, 
according  to  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  was  then  near. 

On  August  10,  1892,  the  Minister,  Sr.  Larrabure  y 
Unanue,  addressed  to  the  accredited  Minister  of  Chile 
in  Lima,  Sr.  Vial  Solar,  the  invitation,  and  a  few  days 
later  a  memorandum,  in  which,  considering  the  sug- 
gestions of  the  latter  in  regard  to  the  means  which  he 
deemed  most  expeditious  for  solving  the  affair,  the 
former  proposed  that  Chile  withdraw  immediately 
from  the  territory  of  Tacna  and  Arica;  that  the  im- 
portation of  products  from  one  country  to  the  other 
in  Chilean  and  Peruvian  ports  be  free;  that  in  the 
places  of  consumption  of  the  products  no  taxes  be  paid 
aside  from  those  which  affected  the  respective  na- 
tionals ;  that  the  merchant  ships  of  both  countries  en- 
joy the  same  privileges  and  exemptions ;  and  that  Peru 
grant  the  Eepublic  of  Bolivia  a  joint  custom-house  in 
the  port  of  Arica,  and  facilitate  the  construction  of 
railroads  and  telegraph  lines  uniting  the  port  of  Arica 
or  the  city  of  Tacna  with  the  territory  of  Tarapaca  or 
the  Bolivian  frontier.  The  mere  declaration  of  those 
fundamental  plans  shows  the  Peruvian  sentiment  with 
respect  to  Tacna  and  Arica,  beside  whose  return  to  the 
national  state  any  sacrifice  seems  small. 

Seven  months  passed,  nevertheless,  without  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Chile  giving  a  reply  to  the  proposal ;  at  the 
end  of  that  time,  on  April  4,  1893,  the  Minister,  Sr. 
Chacaltana,  reiterated,  in  such  an  imperative  way,  the 
invitation  to  proceed  with  the  solemn  performance  of 
the  protocol  that  Sr.  Vial  Solar  accepted  on  the  8th, 
trying  to  exonerate  his  Government  from  the  delays 
which  the  negotiations  had  suffered. 


264 

On  the  same  day,  Sr.  Vial  Solar  believing,  undoubt- 
edly, that  it  would  not  be  possible  to  agree  to  the  new 
invitation  without  expressing  the  opinion  of  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Chile  on  the  bases  presented  by  Sr.  Larra- 
bure  y  Unanue,  he  communicated  to  the  Ministry  that 
"it  wTill  not  become  a  party  to  the  designs  of  the  poli- 
cies of  his  Government  in  renouncing  the  expectancies 
which  Chile  was  assured  by  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,"  and 
that  although  it  favorably  viewed  the  idea  of  negotiat- 
ing commercially  with  Peru  "it  did  not  believe  that 
any  reason  exists  which  makes  it  advisable  to  treat 
with  this  subject  in  connection  with  the  questions  rela- 
tive to  the  definitive  possession  of  the  departments  of 
Tacna  and  Arica. ' ' 

Your  Excellency  will  find  among  the  appendices  the 
documents  which  show  the  negotiations  carried  on, 
from  April  until  September  of  that  year,  between  the 
Ministers,  Senores  Chacaltana  and  Jimenez,  and  the 
representative  of  Chile,  Sr.  Vial  Solar;  and  see  how 
fruitless  they  were,  because  the  Government  of  Chile 
refused  to  agree  to  withdraw  from  the  territory  when 
the  period  of  time,  set  forth  in  the  Treaty,  expired,  a 
measure  which  the  Ministry  demanded,  basing  its  de- 
mands on  the  terms  of  Article  III  and  rejected  the 
proposition  of  putting  the  territories  under  the  au- 
thority of  a  third  power  which  would  preside  during 
the  carrying  on  of  the  plebiscite,  a  proposition  made 
with  a  view  to  assuring  the  freedom  of  suffrage ;  and 
demanded  that  the  right  of  suffrage  be  given  to  all  the 
inhabitants  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  without  distinction  as 
to  nationality,  when  only  the  natives  of  those  provinces, 
domiciled  in  the  same,  were  empowered  to  take  part 
in  the  plebiscite. 

Chile's  opposition  to  complying  with  the  resolutions 
contained  in  the  terms  of  Clause  III  followed  the  sug- 


265 

gestion  to  seek,  in  the  level  country,  the  modification 
of  the  Treaty.  The  Minister,  Sr.  Jimenez,  proposed 
to  Sr.  Vial  Solar  that  on  the  expiration  of  the  period  of 
occupation,  the  zone  included  between  the  Sama  River 
and  the  Vitor  ravine  be  delivered  to  Peru;  that  Chile 
continue  in  possession  of  the  land  bounded  by  the  Vitor 
ravine  and  the  Camarones  ravine ;  that  Peru  and  Chile 
should  dictate  the  procedure  that  should  be  observed, 
in  their  respective  zones,  for  the  execution  of  the  ple- 
biscite; and  that,  if  the  result  favored  Peru,  the  nat- 
ural and  manufactured  products  of  Chile  could  be  im- 
ported free  from  duty  and  not  subject  to  any  other 
consumption  taxes  than  those  set  down  for  the  re- 
spective nationals.  This  commercial  concession  was 
to  last  twenty-five  or  twenty  years,  according  to 
whether  both  or  the  first  of  these  two  plebiscite  pro- 
posals should  favor  Peru.  This  proposition  was  aban- 
doned as  hopeless  by  Sr.  Vial  Solar  in  his  communica- 
tion of  September  26th  of  that  year. 

In  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  refusal  to  accept  a  plan 
of  such  a  nature  was  enough  to  settle  any  doubts  as  to 
the  objects  of  the  Government  of  Chile  with  regard  to 
Tacna  and  Arica,  the  Minister,  Sr.  Jimenez,  proposed 
that  there  should  be  submitted  to  the  immediate  de- 
cision of  a  friendly  government  the  two  questions  into 
which  the  disagreement  had  principally  resolved  itself, 
namely:  which  of  the  two  countries  had  the  right  to 
occupy  the  territory  of  the  provinces,  after  March  28, 
1894,  when  the  time  set  forth  in  Article  III  expired; 
and  who  had  the  right  to  vote  in  the  plebiscite  to  which 
said  clause  refers?  It  is  shown  in  the  record  of  the 
proceedings  of  the  conference  of  December  7, 1893,  that 
Chile  absolutely  refused  to  submit  to  arbitration,  as  it 
did  in  1879,  at  a  time  in  which  the  use  of  this  reasonable 
and  humane  recourse  would  have  avoided  war. 


266 

Yet,  in  the  way  of  concession,  disposed  to  make  the 
greatest  sacrifices,  the  Ministry  went  ahead  seeking  a 
solution  until  the  agreement  set  forth  in  the  communi- 
cations exchanged  between  Senores  Jimenez  and  Vial 
Solar,  on  January  26,  1894,  two  months  before  the  ex- 
piration of  the  period  of  occupation,  was  arrived  at. 
It  was  agreed  that  the  plebiscite  should  be  held  under 
conditions  of  reciprocity  which  both  Governments  may 
deem  necessary  for  bringing  about  an  honest  voting 
which  was  the  faithful  and  exact  expression  of  the 
popular  will  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica ;  that 
in  case  Chile  should  triumph  in  the  plebiscite,  Peru 
could  advance  her  frontier  from  the  Sama  to  the  south 
bank  of  the  Chero  ravine ;  'that  if  Peru  were  favored, 
Chile  could  advance  its  frontier  of  the  Camarones  to 
the  north  bank  of  the  Vitor  ravine  (a  zone  although 
poor  in  population  and  industry,  is  rich  in  mineral  de- 
posits) ;  and  that  the  indemnification  should  be  paid  in 
the  manner  provided  in  the  other  clauses. 

This  arrangement,  accepted  in  full  by  Sr.  Vial  Solar, 
was  rejected,  nevertheless,  by  his  Government  a  few 
months  later.  The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of 
Chile,  Sr.  Sanchez  Fontecilla,  thus  informed  the  Pe- 
ruvian Plenipotentiary,  Sr.  Ribeyro,  in  the  conference 
which  they  held  on  July  5, 1894,  by  which  the  latter  be- 
gan new  negotiations  for  determining  the  conditions  of 
reciprocity  under  which  the  plebiscite  should  be  held, 
when  it  was  inevitable  that  that  Chancellery  would  com- 
ply with  said  agreement.  New  negotiations  immediately 
undertaken  in  Chile,  by  the  same  Sr.  Ribeyro,  for  arriv- 
ing at  some  other  forms  of  agreement,  lasted  from 
July  until  December,  1894.  They  were  six  months  of 
fruitless  discussion  at  the  end  of  which  it  was  seen  that 
it  was  impossible  to  arrive  at  results. 


267 

Meanwhile,  the  time  of  occupation  had  ended,  since 
March  28th,  and  the  Government  of  Chile  continued  to 
occupy  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  although 
now  stripped  of  its  authority  of  title  which  it  had  dur- 
ing the  preceding  ten  years. 

Now  being  able  to  consent  to  this  action,  the  Govern- 
ment of  Peru  drew  up  the  reservation  expressed  in  the 
note  of  Sr.  Ribeyro,  addressed  the  day  before  that  date 
to  the  Chancery  at  Santiago,  thus  recording  its  non- 
responsibility  in  that  situation  plainly. 

While  Peru  was  waiting  for  Chile  to  put  an  end  to 
it,  since  it  seemed  that  she  (Chile)  must  have  an  in- 
terest in  ceasing  its  unlawful  occupation  of  those  ter- 
ritories, the  mission  in  charge  of  Sr.  Maximo  R.  Lira, 
toward  the  end  of  the  year  1894,  came  to  make  it  clear 
that  Chilean  opinion  in  regard  to  the  plebiscite  agreed 
to  in  the  third  clause  had  not  changed. 

In  fact,  Sr.  Lira,  who  on  August  3,  1895,  had  asked 
for  an  audience  with  the  Minister,  Sr.  Candamo,  in  or- 
der to  "  discuss  the  basis  of  the  protocol  to  which  the 
third  Article  refers,' '  began  by  renewing  the  old  and 
always  rejected  proposition  that  the  provinces  of 
Tacna  and  Anca  be  ceded  to  Chile ;  refused  forthwith 
to  discuss  the  basis  for  the  plebiscite  while  everything 
relative  to  the  payment  of  the  indemnification  had  not 
been  agreed  upon,  a  matter  which,  in  the  logical  order, 
in  the  order  of  the  treaty,  and  in  the  order  of  the  facts, 
is  not  an  antecedent  but  a  consequence  of  the  former ; 
then  tried  to  have  the  third  clause  modified  where  it 
establishes  periods  for  the  discharge  of  the  indemnifi- 
cation of  the  ten  million,  claiming  that  the  payment 
was  joined  with  the  holding  of  the  plebiscite  and  that 
Peru  should  give  guarantees  which  would  assure  Chile 
of  the  immediate  receipt  of  the  entire  sum ;  and  ended 
by  declaring  that  the  negotiations  had  failed  because  of 
the  insolvency  of  Peru. 


268 

That  was  not  true.  The  Ministers,  Senores  Can- 
damo,  Porras  and  Ortiz  de  Zevallos  responded  to  Sr. 
Lira,  whose  attitude  seemed  inconsistent  with  the  fact 
that  the  singular  wealth  of  Tarapaca,  which  puts  nearly 
three  million  pounds  sterling  into  the  Chilean  treasury 
annually,  had  been  Peruvian;  that  the  indemnification 
would  be  paid  in  full  a  few  months  after  the  holding 
of  the  plebiscite,  the  two  last  mentioned  going  to  the 
extreme  of  consenting  that  the  decision  favorable  to 
Peru  should  not  be  executed  until  the  indemnity  should 
be  paid. 

The  explanation  of  the  conduct  of  Sr.  Lira  is  shown 
by  the  fact  that  in  May,  1895,  he  celebrated  with  the 
Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile,  Sr.  Barros- 
Borgoho,  and  the  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister 
Plenipotentiary  of  Bolivia,  Sr.  Gutierrez,  treaties  in 
which  Bolivia  definitively  granted  to  Chile  the  terri- 
tory which  the  latter  occupies  according  to  the  Treaty 
of  Peace,  ratified  February  4,  1884,  and  Chile  was 
obligated  to  transfer  to  Bolivia  the  territories  of 
Tacna  and  Arica,  it  being  obliged  to  pledge  all  its 
forces  in  order  to  obtain  definitive  dominion,  and  to 
grant,  if  this  design  does  not  succeed,  the  Vitor  or 
other  analogous  cove. 

Those  pacts,  against  which  my  Government  pro- 
tested as  soon  as  it  had  notice  of  their  existence,  re- 
quired that  Sr.  Lira  would  close,  in  Lima,  the  way  to- 
ward a  solution  conformable  with  the  third  Clause, 
and  since  the  execution  of  the  plebiscite  had  to  frus- 
trate them  the  will  of  the  province  being  purely  Pe- 
ruvian. 

The  negotiations  which  the  Minister  of  the  Republic 
at  Santiago,  Sr.  Porras,  made,  were  wrecked  in  the 
resolution  which  the  Ministers  of  Foreign  Relations 
of  Chile,  Senores  Guerrero  and  Morla  Vicuna,  had 


269 

drawn  up,  identical  with  the  one  which  Sr.  Lira  set 
forth  here.  Again  it  was  confirmed  by  the  peremptory 
and  immediately  rejected  proposition  of  Sr.  Morla 
Vicuna  for  putting  an  end  to  the  matter,  dividing  the 
territory  of  the  provinces  into  three  zones — the  north- 
ern part  of  Peru,  the  southern  part  for  Chile,  and  sub- 
mitting the  central  part  to  a  plebiscite,  or  else  into 
only  two  parts,  that  of  Tacna  and  that  of  Arica,  in 
order  to  give  the  first  to  Peru  and  the  second  to  Chile. 

Thus  the  months  passed,  without  any  events  worthy 
of  mention  other  than  Peru's  renewed  efforts  to  ne- 
gotiate the  protocol,  when,  under  circumstances  which 
America  is  acquainted  with,  it  succeeded  in  getting 
Chile  to  decide  to  celebrate  it.  On  April  16,  1898,  the 
Plenipotentiaries,  Sehores  Billinghurst  and  Latorre, 
signed,  in  Santiago,  the  complementary  protocol  to  the 
Treaty  of  Peace,  submitting  the  questions  relative  to 
the  plebiscite,  to  which  no  direct  agreement  could  be 
reached  by  the  negotiators,  to  the  arbitral  decision  of 
Her  Majesty  the  Queen  of  Spain. 

The  convention  was  approved  in  the  Peruvian  Con- 
gress on  July  13th;  and  on  August  1st  by  the  Senate 
of  Chile,  passirg  immediately  to  the  Chamber  of  Depu- 
ties of  that  country. 

Then  the  Chancellery  of  Santiago  informed  its 
Charge  d'Aff aires  in  Peru,  Sr.  Benavides,  that  the  dis- 
cussion which  that  branch  of  the  legislative  power  had 
given  to  the  protocol,  showed  that  before  its  approval 
it  was  necessary  that  Peru  should  declare,  that,  if  the 
plebiscite  should  favor  it,  the  exportation  of  salpetre 
existing  in  the  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica  should 
not  be  hampered  by  a  tax  smaller  than  that  which  Chile 
had  established.  Sr.  Benavides,  in  his  note  of  Septem- 
ber 9th,  declared  that  he  had  requested  it ;  and  on  the 
14th  of  the  same  month,  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Rela- 


270 

tions,  Sr.  Porras,  and  the  Plenipotentiary  of  Chile  in 
Lima,  Sr.  Amunategui  Eivera,  celebrated  an  agree- 
ment in  accordance  with  which  "the  beds  of  saltpeter 
which  may  exist  in  the  territory  of  Tacna  and  Arica 
shall  be  exploited  nnder  conditions,  as  far  as  the  Gov- 
ernment is  concerned,  similar  to  those  imposed  on  the 
territory  of  Chile;  both  Governments  being  obliged, 
in  the  future,  to  act  unanimously  for  the  determination 
or  reform  of  said  conditions.' ' 

When  it  seemed  that  the  difficulty  was  removed  in 
this  way,  the  same  Sr.  Amunategui  Rivera  communi- 
cated with  the  Ministry,  on  October  1st,  that  his  Gov- 
ernment deemed  it  necessary  that  Peru  should  be 
obliged  not  to  adopt,  with  regard  to  the  saltpetre 
that  may  exist  in  the  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica, 
any  measure  regarding  its  exploitation,  sale  or  trans- 
fer of  dominion,  which  might  in  any  way  impair  the 
monopoly  which  Chile  has  over  this  substance.  The 
Minister,  Sr.  Porras,  refused  to  grant  a  request  which 
was  so  foreign  to  the  third  Clause  and  to  the  protocol 
of  April,  as  being  derogatory  to  the  national  rights. 

Even  when  those  unexpected  demands  clearly 
showed  the  course  that  Chile  proposed  to  follow,  they 
did  not  reveal  as  much  as  the  frankness  of  Sr.  Blanco, 
Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  that  Republic.  Re- 
plying to  Sr.  Benavides,  who  asked  if  the  solution  of 
the  affair  was  next  in  order,  he  said  that  the  Chamber 
of  Deputies  had  occupied  its  regular  sessions  with  the 
discussion  of  the  protocol ;  that  the  extraordinary  ses- 
sions had  been  occupied  by  matters  of  greater  urgency ; 
and  that  circumstances  did  not  permit  any  hope,  or 
even  show  the  expediency  for,  requesting  the  discus- 
sion of  the  pact  which  had  made  such  violent  disturb- 
ances in  this  legislative  body. 


271 

Immediately  Sr.  Blanco  attempted  to  correct  the 
dangerousness  of  his  reply,  and  sent  his  communica- 
tion of  January  2,  1899,  in  which  he  expresses,  in  the 
name  of  His  Excellency  the  President  of  the  Republic, 
that  "if  the  protocol  unfortunately  were  not  discussed 
in  the  present  legislative  session,  he  will  recommend 
that  it  be  expedited  at  the  time  of  the  convening  of  the 
regular  sessions  in  the  coming  month  of  June. ' ' 

The  extraordinary  sessions  ended  without  taking 
up  the  protocol;  and  at  the  time  of  their  convening  in 
June,  its  despatch  was  recommended  in  the  following 
terms :  "In  regard  to  the  questions  which  still  remain 
for  us  to  settle  in  our  relations  with  Peru  and  Bolivia, 
I  ask  the  members  of  the  Congress  to  pass  judgment 
on  the  pacts  which  are  submitted  for  its  consideration, 
in  order  to  put  them  into  effect  if  they  are  worthy  of  a 
favorable  vote. ' ' 

This  and  other  legislative  sessions  closed  without 
taking  the  Protocol  of  April  under  consideration. 

At  the  time  when  this  hoped  for  and  urgent  decision 
as  to  this  agreement  was  deferred,  there  was  being 
advanced,  in  Tacna  and  Arica,  a  great  plan  for  bring- 
ing about  the  conquest  of  those  provinces. 

The  action  of  Chile  was  rapidly  directed  toward 
public  instruction,  in  order  to  bring  about  the  closing 
of  the  schools  directed  by  Peruvians;  toward  the  ad- 
ministration of  justice,  in  order  to  move  the  court  of 
appeals,  which  had  its  seat  in  Iquique,  to  Tacna;  to- 
ward the  military  service,  in  order  to  create  the  seat 
of  the  first  zone  there,  bring  in  regular  armies,  and 
establish,  on  the  waters  of  Arica,  the  schools  which 
are  held  on  the  ships  " Almirante  Cochrane"  and  llIn- 
geniero  Mutilla;"  toward  the  development  of  those 
regions,  to  authorize  concessions  of  mineral  sub- 
stances, and  lay  plans  for  the  colonization,  irrigation, 


272 

and  public  works ;  toward  the  ecclesiastical  regime,  in 
order  to  try  to  have  the  Holy  See  separate  the  parishes 
of  Tacna  and  Arica  from  the  Peruvian  Diocese  of  Are- 
quipa,  later  attempting  to  have  the  Bishop  admit  the 
patronage  of  the  President  of  Chile  with  regard  to 
those  benefits ;  toward  public  patriotic  demonstrations, 
in  order  to  prevent  the  Peruvians  from  celebrating 
the  memorable  date  of  the  national  independence.  The 
action  of  Chile  was  directed,  in  short,  toward  bringing 
about  a  powerful  organization,  whose  forces  would  de- 
stroy Peruvian  nationality  in  those  provinces. 

Surely  this  will  not  be  so,  as,  in  the  land  where  shines 
the  glory  of  those  who  defended  it  "  until  the  firing  of 
the  last  cartridge,' '  no  other  interest  than  that  of  the 
Eepublic  can  prosper. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile,  Sr. 
Errazuriz  Urmeneta,  took  into  account  this  state  of 
affairs,  when,  in  the  memorial  presented  to  the  Con- 
gress inaugurated  in  June  of  last  year,  he  said : 

i '  Meanwhile,  the  Government,  making  use  of  the 
rights  which  the  same  Treaty  of  Ancon  gives  it, 
has  proceeded  to  take  with  respect  to  the  territory 
of  Tacna  and  Arica,  a  series  of  steps  which  place 
Chile  in  a  situation  favorable  for  the  realization 
of  the  plebiscite  and  which,  aside  from  this,  will 
greatly  contribute  to  the  well-being  and  progress 
of  those  provinces,  which  should  participate  in  all 
the  benefits  which  a  prosperous  State  pours  over 
its  territory. ' ' 

My  Government,  which  could  not  indifferently  wit- 
ness the  carrying  out  of  that  demonstrative  plan  from 
which  Chile  formulated  the  decision  to  occupy  the 
provinces  indefinitely,  on  October  8th,  last,  ordered  the 


273 

Minister  of  the  Republic  in  Santiago,  Sr.  Chacaltana, 
to  demand  the  repeal  of  the  measures  adopted  (some  of 
which  my  predecessor  in  this  department,  Sr.  Riva- 
Aguero,  had  demanded)  and  the  restoring  of  conditions 
in  Tacna  and  Arica  to  their  status  on  the  day  on  which 
the  ten-year  period  of  occupation  expired. 

On  November  14th  Sr.  Chacaltana  sent  the  respec- 
tive communication,  of  which  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Relations  of  Chile  acknowledged  receipt  on  the  18th 
of  this  month — after  having  been  asked  for  a  reply  on 
December  15th — saying  that  as  soon  as  the  situation 
of  the  Government  became  normal,  he  would  reply  in 
detail  as  to  every  point  stated  in  those  notes. 

Simultaneously  with  the  postponement  of  the  de- 
cision on  the  protocol,  with  the  establishment  of  the 
forceful  regime  in  Tacna  and  Arica  and  with  the  offers 
which  the  Government  of  Chile  made  to  Sr.  Chacaltana 
for  recommending  that  that  agreement  be  sanctioned, 
the  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary 
of  Chile  in  Lima,  Sr.  Vicuna,  on  September  21st,  sug- 
gested to  His  Excellency  the  President  of  the  Republic, 
the  idea  of  an  international  agreement  to  carry  out  the 
conquest  of  Bolivia.  Sr.  Vicuna  doubtless  thought  that 
he  could  escape  the  failure  which  had  been  made  before 
the  noble  and  active  will  of  the  head  of  the  State,  show- 
ing to  this  office,  on  the  29th  of  the  same  month,  that  the 
question  of  Tacna  and  Arica  could  be  arranged  by 
Peru  granting  those  provinces  to  Chile,  in  exchange 
for  an  offensive  alliance  between  the  two  States  for 
declaring  war  on  Bolivia,  whose  territory  offered  ample 
compensation  for  the  expenses  and  efforts  of  the  enter- 
prise. It  is  unnecessary  to  say  that  the  proposition 
was  peremptorily  rejected. 

Notwithstanding  this,  Sr.  Vicuna  persisted,  a  few 
days  later  setting  forth,  after  he  had  been  advised 


274 

that  it  was  impossible  to  hear  another  word  on  the 
subject,  that  Peru  must  give  up  all  hope  for  the  holding 
of  the  plebiscite  agreed  to  in  the  Treaty  of  Peace. 

Always  firm,  and  every  day  more  justified,  the 
efforts  of  Peru,  for  bringing  about  the  approval  of 
the  protocol  of  April,  continued  until  last  January, 
when  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  of  Chile  rejected  it  in  its 
session  of  the  14th,  after  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Re- 
lations, Sr.  Bello  Codecido,  had  declared  that  his  Gov- 
ernment, by  asking  that  that  convention  be  discussed 
preferentially,  "had  only  wanted  to  obtain  a  decision 
of  the  Honorable  Chamber.' ' 

The  new  situation  created  by  the  vote  of  the  Cham- 
ber of  Deputies,  defeating  the  efforts  made  for  nine 
years  in  order  to  make  Chile  fulfill  the  Treaty  of  Peace, 
and  opposed  to  arbitration  which  was  the  only  means 
for  terminating  the  affair  whose  solution  had  not  been 
found  by  way  of  direct  agreement,  made  it  necessary 
that  my  Government  express  to  the  Government  of 
Chile  the  opinion  which  if  formulated  on  the  same,  to 
which  it  must  immediately  adjust  its  actions.  In  com- 
pliance with  the  instructions  sent  for  that  purpose,  Sr. 
Chacaltana  advised  the  Chancellery  at  Santiago,  on 
the  19th  of  the  same  month,  that  my  Government  con- 
sidered the  rejection  of  the  protocol  as  a  new  demon- 
stration of  the  futility  of  any  effort  to  make  Chile  com- 
ply with  the  third  Clause  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace ;  de- 
nied the  existence  of  any  title  for  the  occupation  of 
Tarata;  affirmed  the  ineffectiveness  of  Chile's  title  for 
occupation  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica  since 
March  28,  1894;  maintained  that  Chile  had  not  been 
empowered  to  change  the  condition  in  which  the  prov- 
inces were  then  found;  declared  that  whatever  the 
later  action  of  Chile  with  regard  to  the  third  Clause 
of  the  Treaty  might  be,  Peru  will  not  agree  to  a  pleb- 


275 

iscite  under  conditions  which  involve  the  infraction  of 
same;  reserved  the  right  to  refuse  new  negotiations 
until  the  situation  which  existed  on  March  28,  1894,  in 
Tacna  and  Arica,  was  reestablished;  and  threatened 
not  to  accept,  with  regard  to  the  plebiscite,  the  conse- 
quences of  acts  which  are  contrary  to  the  Treaty  in 
force  between  the  two  nations. 

On  the  22d,  Sr.  Chacaltana  received  the  note,  dated 
the  19th,  from  the  Minister,  Sr.  Bello  Codecido,  in 
which,  replying  to  the  note  which  the  former  sent  on 
November  14th,  he  states  that  "none  of  the  measures 
import  hostility  to  nor  disregard  of  the  rights  of  Peru, 
nor  do  they  oppose  the  provisions  of  the  Treaty  of 
Ancon";  that  "the  greater  part  of  them  are  directed 
toward  impelling  the  progress  of  the  territory,  and 
procuring  the  happiness  of  its  inhabitants  and  assur- 
ing to  the  territories  prosperity  and  future  aggrandize- 
ment ; ' '  that  ' '  by  those  legitimate  means,  applying  her 
laws  and  standing  firm  on  the  grounds  designated  in 
the  Pact  of  Ancon,  Chile  is  trying  to  guarantee  the  ex- 
pectations of  the  definite  dominion  of  Tacna  and 
Arica' ' ;  that  * '  she  will  not  neglect  to  exercise  any  aid  in 
fulfilling  the  mission  which,  with  regard  to  those  terri- 
tories, the  Treaty  of  Ancon  impels  her  to  do,  in  a  way 
that  should  make  her  entitled  to  the  confidence  and 
gratitude  of  the  inhabitants " ;  and  that  "his  Govern- 
ment will  continue  to  serve  the  interests  and  necessities 
of  the  present  departments  of  Tacna  and  Arica  to  the 
extent  of  its  powers,  without  the  contingency  that  those 
territories — with  all  the  benefits  which  the  well  dis- 
posed and  progressive  work  of  the  Chilean  administra- 
tion may  have  left  there — might  later  pass  to  the  do- 
minion of  Peru,  thus  discouraging  its  action. 

On  January  30th,  Sr.  Chacaltana  replied.  And,  on 
February  18th,  Sr.  Bello  Codecido  sent  him  a  new  note  in 


276 

which  he  stated,  with  regard  to  the  measures  taken  in 
Tacna  and  Arica,  that  "the  Government  of  Chile  can- 
not revoke  resolutions  which  it  has  made  with  proper 
motives,  and  employing  powers  which  cannot  be  disre- 
garded and  which  belong  to  it  to  exercise";  with  re- 
spect to  the  ineffectiveness  of  the  title  of  occupation, 
the  period  of  ten  years  having  ended  it,  that ' '  Chile  re- 
tains the  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica  under  its  con- 
trol with  perfect  right  and  very  just  reason";  about 
its  authority  over  these  provinces,  that  "in  Tacna  and 
Arica  Chile  has  no  incomplete  or  restrained  sover- 
eignty"; but  that  "it  is  maintaining  its  character  as 
sovereign  as  long  as  a  plebiscite  voting  does  not  modify 
the  present  situation;"  on  the  objectives  toward  which 
the  policies  of  Chile  are  aimed,  that  "it  is  not  fair  to 
attribute  to  that  country  the  design  to  frustrate  any 
settlement  which  might  lead  toward  a  prompt,  friendly 
and  equitable  solution,  in  order  to  permit,  at  the  same 
time,  the  work  of  definitively  uniting  the  territories 
in  question  with  Chile ' '  and  that ' '  there  are  many  ante- 
cedent events  in  the  Chancelleries  of  Chile  and  Peru 
which  show  the  efforts  which  Chile  has  made,  on  several 
occasions-,  for  arriving  at  a  solution  which  was  fair  to 
both  nations;"  and  lastly,  with  respect  to  ,the  trans- 
gressions of  Clause  III,  that ' '  the  Government  of  Chile 
has  conformed  and  continues  to  conform  its  conduct 
with  the  provisions  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  which  it 
has  always  respected  and  complied  with. ' ' 

Sr.  Bello  Codecido  had  no  difficulty  in  thus  defining 
the  exceptionally  grave  situation,  in  which  the  rejec- 
tion of  arbitration,  the  execution  in  Tacna  and  Arica 
of  the  measures  to  which  I  have  heretofore  referred, 
and  the  inefficacy  of  the  action  of  Peru  to  get  Chile 
to  agree  that  this  affair  should  be  terminated  accord- 
ing to  that  which  is  law  in  both  states,  all  contribute 


277 

to  the  violation  of  Clause  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace 
and  the  fundamental  principles  of  public  law. 

In  March,  my  Government  responded  to  this  situa- 
tion of  force  by  recalling  the  Legation  which  had  been 
accredited  in  Santiago. 

These  are  the  facts. 

My  Government  submits  them  to  the  impartial 
judgment  of  Your  Excellency's  Government,  and  de- 
clares : 

First.  That  Peru  only  desires  the  fulfillment  of 
Clause  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace. 

Second.  That  it  thinks  its  rights,  according  to 
that  Clause,  permit  it  to  demand : 

(a)  That  the  surrender  of  the  territory  belonging 
to  the  Province  of  Tarata  should  be  brought  about ; 

(b)  That  the  authority  of  Chile  in  Tacna  and  Arica 
should  end; 

(c)  That  the  plebiscite  should  be  held  under  the 
authority  of  a  friendly  power ; 

(d)  That  in  the  plebiscite  only  the  Peruvian  natives 
of  those  provinces,  who  have  their  domicile  there,  shall 
vote; 

(e)  That  the  result  of  the  plebiscite  sFall  be  singular, 
that  is,  it  must  decide  as  to  the  future  nationality  of 
all  the  territory  which  the  said  Clause  submitted  to 
temporary  occupation  by  Chile;  and 

(f )  That  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  either  coun- 
try may  be  prepared  to  pay  the  indemnification  imme- 
diately after  the  plebiscite,  the  dates  for  payment,  to 
which  the  same  Clause  refers,  shall  be  established. 

Third.  That,  in  spite  of  the  stability  of  Peru's 
rights,  she  has  always  been  disposed  to  submit  any 
question  relative  to  the  plebiscite  to  arbitration. 

Fourth.  That  it  considers  that  the  present  status 
of  the  matter  jeopardizes  the  future  of  the  political  in- 
terests of  the  continent.    And 


278 

Fifth.     That  it  is  not  responsible  in  any  way  for 
the  beginning  or  maintenance  of  this  situation. 

I  take  this  opportunity,  Mr.  Minister,  to  give  Your 
Excellency  the  assurances  of  my  highest  consideration. 

I  am,  Sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

Felipe  de  Osma. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of 


Report  Presented  by  Director  of  Boundary  Office  of 
Chile  to  Minister  of  Interior  of  Chile. 

[Translation.] 

Boundaey  Office, 

Santiago,  October  1,  1903. 

Me.  Ministek: 

By  decree  dated  January  21st  last,  the  Department 
under  your  charge  ordered  me  to  carry  out  the  de- 
marcation of  the  northern  boundary  line  of  the  prov- 
ince of  Tarapaca,  between  the  point  called  Arepunta 
and  the  Bolivian  border. 

As  in  1900,  Senores  Alberto  Obrecht,  Director  of  the 
Observatory,  and  Abelardo  Pizarro  had  been  ordered 
to  report  to  your  Department  regarding  the  same 
boundary  line,  I  proposed,  in  the  first  place,  to  study 
the  report  of  the  said  commissioners  to  see  whether  I 
should  limit  myself  to  drawing  upon  the  ground  the 
line  indicated  by  them,  or  whether  it  was  necessary 
to  carry  out  new  investigations  upon  the  ground,  or  to 
take  into  consideration  other  facts  in  the  question,  not 
considered  heretofore. 


279 

Upon  reading  Senores  Obrecht  and  Pizarro  's  report 
(published  in  the  Official  Bulletin  of  November  29, 
1900,  pages  3840  and  3841)  I  came  to  the  following  con- 
clusions : 

1. 1  agree  with  the  said  report  to  the  effect  that  "the 
existing  Treaties  (that  of  Ancon,  and  the  Truce  Pact 
with  Bolivia)  do  not  set  out  with  complete  exactness 
the  boundaries  of  the  departments  of  Pisagua  and 
Arica,  \ ' 

2.  I  agree  in  that  "the  complementary  line  must 
be  set  out  in  such  manner  that  the  dividing  line  be- 
tween the  present  departments  of  Arica  and  Pisagua, 
will  approximate  as  nearly  as  possible  the  old  boun- 
dary between  the  Peruvian  departments  of  Tarapaca 
and  Arica." 

3.  I  consider  that,  taking  into  consideration  only 
the  cartographic  facts  in  the  question,  as  is  done  in  the 
report,  the  solution  indicated  therein  of  following  the 
ravines  of  Ajatama  and  Jaruma  or  Anocarire  and  of 
completing  the  boundary  by  means  of  a  straight  line 
as  far  as  Puquintica,  is  quite  correct. 

4.  Finally,  I  agree  in  general  with  the  report,  re- 
garding the  approximate  location  of  our  eastern  boun- 
dary with  Bolivia  in  this  part,  following  a  line  that 
will  pass  through  Puquintica  Hill  and  continue  to  the 
south,  swerving  a  few  degrees  to  the  east. 

At  the  same  time  that  I  arrived  at  these  conclusions, 
Mr.  Minister,  I  became  aware  of  the  convenience  and 
even  of  the  necessity,  of  establishing  upon  unquestion- 
able bases  the  fixing  of  a  boundary  line  that,  although 
for  the  time  being  has  no  other  aspect  than  that  of 
an  interprovincial  line,  may  acquire  in  the  near  future 
the  nature  of  an  international  boundary  line. 

Now  then,  without  losing  sight  of  the  fact  that  the 
geographical  demarcation  of  the  line  in  question,  in 


280 

Peruvian  and  Bolivian  maps,  is  a  fact  of  importance, 
I  attribute  a  much  greater  importance  to  the  material 
demarcation  which  may  have  existed  upon  the  ground. 

Likewise,  recognizing  the  usefulness  of  the  deter- 
mination of  the  position  of  four  points  of  the  boun- 
dary line  on  the  ravine  of  Camarones,  made  by  Sr. 
Obrecht,  and  that  of  the  hills  that  surround  the  borate 
deposits  of  Chilcaya,  made  by  Sr.  Pizarro,  I  considered 
it  indispensable  to  draw  up  a  map,  sufficiently  com- 
plete and  -in  detail,  of  the  section  to  be  traced  out,  so 
that  all  the  points  that  were  to  make  up  the  boundary 
line,  could  be  found  therein  without  a  possibility  of 
doubt  or  ambiguity. 

I  proposed,  therefore,  on  the  one  hand,  to  send  a 
commission  to  draw  up  the  map  upon  the  ground,  and 
on  the  other  hand,  to  collect  and  study  all  the  facts  of 
historical,  traditional,  legal,  and  administrative  na- 
ture, tending  .to  solve  the  questions  of  the  existence  of 
an  old  colonial  boundary  between  Tarapaca  and  Arica, 
and  of  the  possible  modification  later  of  that  boundary 
during  the  Peruvian  administration,  up  to  the  moment 
of  the  cession  of  Tarapaca  to  Chile. 

The  commission  charged  with  the  duty  of  drawing 
up  the  map  of  the  territory,  and  of  investigating  as  to 
the  existence  and  identification  of  old  boundary  marks, 
was  composed  of  the  engineers  Senores  Anibal  Con- 
treras  and  Victor  Caro  Tagle,  and  of  the  assistant, 
Sr.  J.  M.  Espinosa.  Upon  the  date  of  your  decree, 
that  personnel  was  still  occupied  in  some  work  on  the 
Argentine  border,  and  could  reach  the  Camarones  re- 
gion only  in  the  latter  part  of  March  (1903),  carrying 
the  following  instructions : 

"Instructions   to   the   Commission   Investigating 
the  Northern  Boundary  of  Tarapaca. 
"1.  A  search,  in  the  files  at  Pisagua  and  at 
Camiiia,  must  be  effected  for  the  documents  re- 


281 

lating  to  the  actual  boundary  line  of  the  latter 
parish. 

"2.  To  search,  in  the  files  at  Arica  and  at  Codpa, 
for  similar  documents  relating  to  this  latter 
parish. 

"3.  Having  in  mind  the  astronomical  works  of 
Obrecht,  as  well  as  the  topographical  works  of 
Renjifo,  Barrios,  and  Franz  Germann,  and  carry- 
ing out  the  necessary  verifying  and  complemen- 
tary operations,  to  fix  the  relative  position  of  the 
following  points: 

Hills  : 
Anocarire, 

Chulluncayani  or  Chulluncane, 
Chuquiananto  or  Choquenanta, 
Surire, 
Pumire, 
Guaiguasi, 
Capitan, 
Llizcaya, 
Puquintica, 

Small  white  hill  in  Surire  Lake  (Oquecollo). 
Isluga  Volcano. 

River  junctions  : 
Arepunta 
Junction  of  the  Ajatama  with  each  one  of  its 

tributaries. 
Junction  of  the  Caritaya  with  the  ravine   of 

Mullure. 
Source  of  the  ravine  of  Jaruma  or  Anocarire. 
Source  of  the  Stream  Sura-Sura  or  ravine  Ama- 

rilla. 
Source  of  the  stream  Mullure. 
Source  of  the  Guaiguasi;  and  all  the  boundary 

marks  that  may  be  identified. 

"4.  To  identify  upon  the  ground,  by  means  of 
old  guides,  each  one  of  the  marks,  if  possible,  of 
the  eastern  boundary,  from  the  mark  Yurocsa  on 
the  north  to  Quimsachata  on  the  south. 


282 

"5.  To  identify  in  the  same  manner  the  marks 
of  the  boundary  between  the  parishes  of  Codpa 
and  Camiiia,  from  Surire  to  Taltape. 

"6.  To  go  over  also,  in  so  faras  time  may  per- 
mit, the  marks  of  the  eastern  boundary  toward  the 
south  as  far  as  the  boundary  mark  of  Hizo. 

"7.  In  the  case  of  every  boundary  mark  that 
may  be  identified,  bearings  shall  be  taken  to  place 
it,  and  inscriptions  shall  be  placed  on  neighbor- 
ing rocks  in  order  that  it  may  be  found  readily. 

"8.  To  note  specially  the  relative  volume  of 
water  of  each  one  of  the  tributaries  of  the  River 
Camarones  (above  Arepunta),  as  well  as  the.  per- 
manent or  intermittent  character  of  its  system. 

Santiago,  January  21,  1903. 

A.  Bektrand." 

The  Commission  initiated  its  work  under  most  un- 
favorable conditions.  The  entire  personnel  was  taken 
down  with  tertian  fever  while  crossing  the  valley  of 
Camarones,  and  only  Senores  Caro  and  Espinosa  were 
able  to  complete  their  work  on  the  section  between 
Arepunta  and  the  Bolivian  border  in  the  Chilcaya  re- 
gion. In  the  course  of  this  report,  the  results  of  that 
work  will  be  taken  into  consideration. 

I  shall  now  pass  on  to  consider  in  detail  the  ques- 
tions that  must  be  solved  in  this  report,  to  wit : 

1.  To  elucidate  as  to  what  point  the  Treaty  of  Ancon 
gives  an  exact  definition  of  the  northern  boundary  of 
Tarapaca. 

2.  Facts  regarding  the  colonial  northern  boundary 
of  Tarapaca. 

3.  Facts  regarding  the  period  of  Peruvian  adminis- 
tration. 

4.  Determination  of  the  present  boundary  line. 

In  carrying  out  this  investigation,  I  have  before 
me  not  only  the  documents  which  were  sent  to  me  by 


283 

your  Department  with  dispatch  number  62,  dated  Jan- 
uary 20th,  but  many  others  which  refer  also  to  the 
eastern  boundary  of  Tarapaca  and  which  have  been 
supplied  to  me  by  the  Department  of  Foreign  Re- 
lations ;  a  number  of  publications  and  maps  of  diverse 
origin;  a  certain  number  of  old  documents  obtained 
through  the  administrative  authorities  and  through 
private  channels ;  and  finally,  important  investigations 
made  upon  the  ground  by  reason  of  the  suit  carried 
on  by  several  concerns  that  work  the  borate  deposits 
of  Chilcaya  and  of  Surire. 

To  facilitate  referring  to  these  documents  in  the 
course  of  my  report,  I  have  made  the  enclosed  num- 
bered list  of  them. 

I. 

Determination    of    the    Boundary    According    to    the 
Treaty  of  Ancon. 

Senores  Obrecht  and  Pizarro  have  already  called 
attention  in  their  report,  to  the  fact  that  "the  Treaty 
of  Ancon  does  not  determine,  with  complete  preci- 
sion, the  boundaries  of  the  Departments  of  Pisagua 
and  of  Arica,  because  the  Camarones  River,  or  bet- 
ter, all  the  rivers  of  which  the  Camarones  is  com- 
posed, rise  to  the  west  of  the  Bolivian  frontier. ' ' 

The  undersigned  not  only  concurs,  but  goes  further, 
and  affirms  that  it  is  deduced,  from  an  examination  of 
the  text  of  the  Treaty,  that  the  signers  thereof  could 
not  have  intended  that  it  should  contain  a  precise 
determination  of  the  boundaries  of  the  province  of 
Tarapaca,  because  if  that  were  the  case,  it  would  re- 
sult that  the  determination  given  would  not  only  have 
been  incomplete  but  also  inexact. 

In  fact,  Article  II  of  the  Treaty  states:  "The  Re- 
public of  Peru  cedes  to  the  Republic  of  Chile,  perpet- 


284 

ually  and  unconditionally,  the  territory  of  the  littoral 
province  of  Tarapaca,  the  boundaries  of  which  are: 
on  the  north,  the  ravine  and  River  Camarones;  on 
the  south,  the  ravine  and  River  Loa;  on  the  east,  the 
Republic  of  Bolivia;  and  the  west,  the  Pacific  Ocean: " 
I  do  not  believe  it  necessary  to  prove  that  "the 
territory  ceded,' '  according  to  this  clause>  is  the  pro- 
vince of  Tarata  in  its  entirety,  and  that  the  phrase 
"the  boundaries  of  which  are  *  *  *"  is  not  a  limit- 
ing phrase,  but  one  purely  descriptive  and  explana- 
tory. If  any  doubt  could  be  entertained  in  this  re- 
spect, it  would  be  sufficient  to  dissipate  it,  to  observe 
how  inexact  and  geographically  absurd  it  would  be 
to  give  the  meaning  of  a  precise  and  complete  de- 
termination of  the  southern  boundary  of  Tarapaca,  to 
the  phrase:  "On  the  south,  the  ravine  and  River 
Loa."  The  negotiators  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  could 
not  ignore  the  fact  that  "the  ravine  and  River  Loa" 
never  have  been  the  southern  boundary  of  Tarapaca, 
except  for  a  very  short  distance.  This  has  not  been 
either  the  traditional  or  the  geographic  boundary,  and 
even  Peru  never  has  pretended  it  to  be  such.  It  is 
sufficient,  in  this  respect,  to  refer  to  the  maps  of 
Bollaert  and  Smith,  of  Ondarza  and  Mujia,  of  Hugo 
Reck,  of  Paz  Soldan  and  of  Barrera.  According  to 
Paz  Soldan,  the  southern  boundary  of  Tarapaca  only 
cut  the  Loa  a  little  above  Quillagua ;  according  to  the 
official  map  of  Bolivia,  that  of  Ondarza,  the  boundary 
coincided  with  the  Loa,  from  the  mouth  of  the  river 
up  to  a  point  near  Chacance;  at  all  events,  the  Loa 
formed  only  less  than  one  half  of  the  southern 
boundary.  I  repeat  that  the  negotiators  of  the  Treaty 
of  Ancon  could  not  ignore  this  fact,  and  therefore 
the  phrase:  "on  the  south,  the  ravine  and  River 
Loa"  could  have  only  a  general  and  merely  descrip- 
tive meaning,  and  not  a  limiting  one. 


.     285 

And  if  this  happened  and  must  be  granted  with 
respect  to  the  southern  boundary,  what  right  is  there 
to  give  another  interpretation  or  greater  reach  to 
the  phrase,  entirely  analogous  to  the  one  that  we 
have  been  discussing:  "On  the  north  the  ravine  and 
Kiver  Camarones"? 

The  province  of  Tarapaca  was  ceded  uncondition- 
ally to  Chile  according  to  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  with 
the  northern,  southern,  and  eastern  boundaries  that 
it  had  under  Peruvian  sovereignty,  whether  or  not 
they  are  correctly,  precisely,  and  completely  expressed 
in  the  text  of  the  said  Treaty. 

This  express  intention  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon, 
would  be  defeated  doubly  if  a  restrictive  meaning 
were  given  to  the  phrase  "on  the  north,  by  the  ravine 
and  River  Camarones";  it  would  be  affected  in  the 
transversal  direction  to  that  line,  that  is,  from  north 
to  south;  and  on  the  other  hand  it  could  be  affected 
in  the  longitudinal  direction,  that  is  from  west  to 
east.  The  first  of  these  aspects  will  be  discussed 
with  greater  amplitude  in  the  course  of  this  report. 
But  it  is  convenient  to  enter  immediately  upon  an 
elucidation  of  the  second,  that  is,  can  the  northern 
boundary  of  Tarapaca  extend  to  a  point  further  to 
the  west  than  the  origin  or  source  of  the  ravine  or 
River  Camarones,  according  to  the  Treaty  of  Ancon! 

This  question  is  determined  prima  facie  by  the 
fact  that  the  cession  of  Tarapaca  was  "  uncondi- 
tional." If  before  its  cession  to  Chile,  the  said  prov- 
ince extended  to  a  point  further  east  than  the  ravine 
of  Camarones,  that  is  to  say,  if  the  Peruvian-Bolivian 
frontier  at  this  point  included  a  strip  of  plateau  the 
waters  of  which  did  not  fall  into  the  Camarones,  there 
is  not  anything  to  show  the  existence  of  a  tacit  agree- 
ment to  the  effect  that  this  strip  had  been  eliminated 


286 

from  the  unconditional  cession  of  the  territory  of 
the  province,  and  if  that  narrow  strip  really  had  been 
eliminated  from  the  cession,  it  would  continue  to  be- 
long to  Peru,  and  not  in  any  case  would  it  have 
become  Bolivian  territory. 

These  conclusions  seem  obvious.  Yet  the  Minister 
of  Bolivia  in  Chile,  in  his  note  of  January  8,  1901, 
in  which  he  criticizes  the  Obrecht-Pizarro  report,  de- 
clares that,  according  to  the  purport  of  the  Treaty 
of  Ancon,  "the  territory  ceded  to  Chile  must  have, 
in  all  its  latitude,  as  northern  boundary  the  ravine 
and  River  Camarones,  and  no  more."  According  to 
the  same  discernment,  must  be  added,  "and  no  less," 
and  applying  this  Bolivian  rule  to  the  southern 
boundary  of  the  same  province,  the  Minister  of  Bo- 
livia would  be  forced  to  accept  that  "the  territory 
ceded  to  Chile  must  have,  in  all  its  latitude,  as  its 
southern  boundary  the  ravine  and  River  Loa,  no 
more  and  no  less." 

If  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  holds  good  for  Bolivia  upon 
the  northern  boundary,  why  should  it  not  do  so  upon 
the  southern  boundary!  If  Bolivia  is  to  benefit  from 
the  excluding  and  limiting  character  which  she  at- 
tributes to  the  phrase,  "the  ravine  and  River  Cama- 
rones" seizing  the  strip  of  plateau  which  was  for- 
merly Peruvian  and  which  thus  would  be  eliminated 
from  the  cession  of  Tarapaca  to  Chile,  her  Foreign 
Department  must  attribute  the  same  excluding  and 
limiting  character  to  the  phrase  "the  ravine  and  River 
Loa"  and  must  consider  included  in  "the  territory 
ceded  unconditionally  to  Chile"  that  strip  which  Bo- 
livia possessed  between  the  Loa  and  her  old  frontier 
with  Peru.  This  irrefutable  conclusion  certainly  has 
not  been  contemplated  by  the  Minister  of  Bolivia. 

In  the  same  manner,  another  argument  adduced  by 
the    Minister    of    Bolivia    to    prove    that    the    entire 


287 

eastern  boundary  of  Tarapaca  must  be  found  at  the 
sources  of  the  rivers  that  flow  down  to  the  Pacific, 
that  is,  at  the  watershed  of  the  Andes,  is  refuted.  The 
Minister  says  that  that  line  (the  watershed)  is  the 
only  one  "that  corresponds  to  the  judgment  and  to 
the  plan  of  action  that  this  Republic  (Chile)  has 
adopted  as  an  invariable  principle  in  fixing  her  in- 
ternational boundaries."  The  Minister  of  Bolivia 
is  in  error  and  introduces  a  confusion.  Chile  has 
not  adopted  any  invariable  principle  respecting  in- 
ternational boundaries;  undoubtedly  the  Minister 
refers  to  the  "invariable  rule"  which,  according  to 
a  protocol  signed  in  1893  with  the  Argentine  Republic, 
must  be  followed  in  fixing  the  boundaries  along  the 
Andes  Mountains  where  Chile  borders  upon  that  Re- 
public. It  may  be  affirmed  without  fear  of  contradic- 
tion that  the  negotiators  of  1893  did  not  have  any 
more  intentions  of  establishing  principles  of  demarca- 
tion with  Bolivia,  than  did  the  negotiators  of  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon. 

The  fundamental  basis  of  Article  II  of  the  Treaty 
of  Ancon  must  be  maintained  by  Chile  in  all  its  en- 
tirety; all  the  territory  which  under  Peruvian  sov- 
ereignty made  up  the  province  of  Tarapaca  was  ceded 
"unconditionally"  to  Chile.  The  examination  that  I 
have  made  of  the  text  of  the  clause,  shows  clearly 
that  the  "mention"  made  therein  of  the  limits  of 
the  province,  was  not  and  did  not  pretend  to  be,  a 
precise  and  complete  determination. 

Chile  has  the  right  and  the  duty  to  investigate  which 
were  those  limits  and  of  determining  them,  not  accord- 
ing to  the  merely  conferential  phrases,  or  to  de- 
finitions which  are  obviously  incomplete,  or  much  less 
to  "invariable  principles"  dictated  for  other  demar- 
cations, but  exclusively  according  to  the  geographical, 


288 

traditional    or    administrative,    antecedents    peculiar 
to  those  limits. 

II. 

Facts  with  Respect  to  the  Northern  Boundary  of  Ta- 
rapaca during  the  Colonial  Period. 

Under  the  colonial  system,  the  district  of  Arica 
and  the  district  of  Tarapaca  were  dependencies  of 
the  Intendants  of  Arequipa.  Each  district  was  sub- 
divided into  curacies,  each  composed  of  one  head  town 
and  several  small  villages  or  annexes  of  the  respec- 
tive curacies. 

The  district  of  Arica  was  composed  "of  the  city 
of  Arica  the  chief  city,  and  the  towns  of  Belen,  Cot- 
pa,  Tacna,  Sama,  Tarata,  Candarave,  Ilabaya,  the  val- 
leys of  Locumba  and  Ilo."  (Tadeo  Haenke,  "Descrip- 
cion  del  Reino  del  Peru  en  1793. ' ') 

The  cosmographer,  Doctor  Cosme  Bueno,  in  "El 
conocimiento  de  los  Tiempos,,  (The  knowledge  of 
the  Times)  of  1765,  gives  some  details  about  the  cur- 
acies of  the  Bishopric  of  Arequipa.  Respecting  the 
curacy  of  Copta  (Cotpa)  he  states:  "It  has  17  an- 
nexes, which  are  Pachica,  Esquina,  Timar  Tgnabnar 
(Ticnamar),  Sacsama  (Sacsamar)  Beflen  (Belen) 
Pachania,  Socoroma,  Putre,  Parinacota,  Choquelimpe 
(Choquelimpie),  Huayaquiri  (Guallatiri),  Sora,  Po- 
conchile,  Libilca   (Livilcar),  Umagata   (Humagata)." 

About  the  district  of  Tarapaca,  Sr.  Antonio  O'Brien 
in  1765  states  as  follows: 

"This  district  is  composed  of  four  curacies: 
first,  that  of  Tarapaca  which  is  made  up  of  the 
annexes  of  Guarazina,  Tilivilca,  Guavina,  Mamiha, 
Iquinca,  Pasca,  Macaya,  and  Huaza,  the  mines  of 
Guantajaya,  and  the  port  of  Iqueyquey;  second, 


289 

that  of  Camilla,  with  the  annexes  of  Chiapa,  So- 
toca,  Isluga,  Cariquima,  Minimini,  Cara,  and 
Pisagua;  third  that  of  Pica,  with  the  annexes  of 
Matilla,  Chipana,  Guatacondo  Capurra,  Biguin- 
tipa,  Mino,  the  valley  of  Quillaga,  the  mines  of 
Ujina,  the  mines  of  Our  Virgin  Mary,  in  the 
Coast  fisheries;  the  fourth,  that  of  Sibaya,  with 
the  -annexes  of  Limasciiia,  Usmagama,  Sipisa, 
Mocha,  and  Guasquiha.  *  *  *" 

The  curacies  neighboring  upon  the  districts  of  Ar- 
ica  and  Tarapaca  were  under  the  colonial  system  that 
of  Codpa  (or  Cotpa)  upon  the  side  of  Arica,  and 
Camiiia  upon  the  Tarapaca  side,  and  I  have  begun 
by  investigating  if  any  act  respecting  the  boundary 
between  both  jurisdictions  exists. 

I  found  a  document  which  contains  the  boundaries 
of  the  curacy  of  Camina,  published  by  Sr.  Mariano 
Felipe  Paz  Soldan  in  his  pamphlet  "Verdaderos  Li- 
mites  entre  Peru  y  Bolivia"  (True  Boundaries  Be- 
tween Peru  and  Bolivia)  at  Lima  in  1878.  The  set- 
ting of  boundary  marks,  beginning  on  April  30,  1662, 
starts  upon  the  south,  where  the  boundary  with  the 
curacy  of  Sibaya  goes  up  to  Lirima,  passes  through 
the  boundary  mark  called  Lupe,  reaches  the  ridge  of 
Lipez  at  the  boundary  mark  Samtaile,  follows  this 
ridge  for  seven  boundary  marks  to  the  hill  of  Coipasa, 
where  the  ridge  of  Carangas  begins,  follows  this  ridge 
for  eighteen  boundary  marks  more,  to  the  Capitan 
which  is  a  large  hill,  and  goes  on  thusly,  according 
to  the  text  of  the  document: 

"Boundary  mark  Polloguere,  boundary  mark 
Surire;  within  the  lagoon  there  is  a  small  white 
hill,  and  into  this  lagoon,  flows  the  River  Blanco, 
which  is  the  return  mark  toward  the  sea,  to  the 
curacy  of  Cotpa  and  the  annexes  of  Isquina  (Es- 


290 

quiha),  to  the  boundary  mark  Quecaye,  along  the 
hillock,  to  the  marks  Chaca,  Caltaja,  Chulluncani, 
Porco,  Gaiaylla,  Pucupucune,  Anisirca,  Lirpo,  Al- 
cohuma,  Ancoaque,  the  mark  called  Oreja  at  the 
ravine  of  Ajatama,  which  upon  this  side  becomes 
the  Pampa  of  Caltaya  and  Aispunta;  the  mark 
Pullapullani,  the  mark  Huma-aiso,  following  the 
river  that  is  the  boundary,  down  to  Camarones; 
the  other  side  of  Isquiha  (Esquina)  belongs  to 
Cotpa  and  this  said  river  is  the  boundary  as  far 
as  Catinjagua,  which  is  farther  up  than  Tallape, 
the  mark  Tallape  or  Taltape,  the  mark  called  the 
Height  of  Humallani,  a  heap  of  stones,  another 
heap  of  stones  en  the  Pampa  that  goes  down  to 
the  sea  called  Ojaica,  and  these  marks  belong  to 
the  town  of  the  curacy  of  Camina  and  to  the  juris- 
diction of  the  City  of  Arica.  *  *  * ' ' 

The  document  from  which  Sr.  Paz  Soldan  repro- 
duced this  copy:  "Is  an  authorized  copy  of  the  ori- 
ginal papers  which  exist  in  Chiapa,  *  *  *"  and 
is  dated  at  Chiapa,  May  20,  1749.' 

I  have  obtained  two  other  original  copies,  on  paper 
sealed  with  the  royal  seal  of  Ferdinand  VII,  dated 
the  one  at  Santa  Maria  Magdalena  de  Chiapa,  April 
20,  1751,  and  the  other  at  the  town  of  Santo  Tomas 
de  Camina  on  February  22,  1788.  The  text  of  these 
two  copies  agrees  (although  it  is  not  identical)  with 
that  published  by  Paz  Soldan  respecting  the  boundary 
between  the  Curacy  of  Camina  and  the  districts  of 
Lipez  and  Carangas,  but  does  not  agree  in  that  part 
which  refers  to  the  boundary  with  the  curacy  of  Cotpa. 

After  the  phrase,  "they  join  to  the  curacy  of  Cotpa 
and  the  annexes  of  Esquina,"  it  continues: 

"Boundary  mark  called  Chuquiananta  which 
runs  down  the  hillock;  mark  called  Halagueri  (ac- 
cording to  one  copy  and  Alegueri  according  to 


291 

the  other);  mark  called  Chaca  (Checa,  according 
to  the  Chiapa  copy) ;  marks  Caltaya,  Anisirca, 
Ingahuma  (Ingauna,  according  to  the  other  copy), 
Igorane  (Igorairi,  in  the  other),  and  at  the  height 
of  Pachica  goes  down  to  the  ravine  of  Camarones, 
that  height  going  down  to  the  same  chapel,  runs 
along  the  river,  one  bank  of  which  belongs  to  the 
curacy  of  Cotpa  and  the  other  bank  to  the  curacy 
of  Camina,  reaches  the  sea,  and  these  are  those 
belonging  to  the  town  of  the  curacy  of  Camina. 


Without  attempting,  for  the  present,  to  identify 
points  or  to  study  the  differences  of  territory  which 
there  may  be  between  the  copy  published  by  Paz  Sol- 
dan  and  the  other  copies,  I  shall  call  attention  to  the 
fact  that,  according  to  the  map,  that  difference  is  not 
great,  and  that  it  does  not  disprove  the  fact  that  the 
inhabitants  of  the  adjoining  curacies  held  boundary 
titles  which  evidently  they  considered  good,  and  that 
they  respected  these  documents,  whatever  might  have 
been  their  primitive  authenticity.  Those  documents 
must  be  considered  proofs  of  the  jurisdiction  existing 
at  that  time,  as  long  as  there  are  none  better,  or  none 
that  will  contradict  them.  And  it  may  be  added  that, 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  reconstitution  of  the 
boundary  as  it  existed  during  the  Peruvian  domina- 
tion, the  copies  that  I  have  mentioned,  because  the 
said  geographer,  who  at  that  time  was  the  Chairman 
of  the  Peruvian  Territorial  Boundary  Commission,  ac- 
cepts the  authenticity  of  that  document  and  presents 
it  as  a  good  title  respecting  the  boundary  with  Bo- 
livia. 

The  various  copies  all  are  agreed  upon  the  fact 
that  the  eastern  boundary  between  the  curacy  of  Ca- 
mina and  the  district  of  Carangas  ends  at  the  Capitan 
hill,  at  the  mark  Polloguere,  and  at  the  small  white 


292 

hill  in  the  middle  of  the  Surire  lagoon,  that  there, 
the  boundary  turned  toward  the  sea,  commencing  to 
run  along  the  curacy  of  Codpa,  down  the  hillock  and 
toward  the  River  Camarones,  thus  reaching  the  sea. 

According  to  this  data,  it  is  established  clearly  that 
in  the  early  times  of  the  colony,  the  pampa  and  lagoon 
of  Surire  was  divided  among  the  three  jurisdictions: 
the  curacy  of  Codpa  upon  the  northwest;  Camina, 
southwest  of  the  district  of  Arica;  and  the  district 
of  Carangas  upon  the  east.  The  small  white  hill  of 
Oquecollo,  upon  which  was  situated  the  boundary  mark 
called  " Surire,' '  was  the  meeting  point  of  the  " Great 
Border,' '  being  the  interparochial  boundary  between 
Camina  and  Codpa,  which  went  down  to  Camarones 
through  the  pass  of  Chaca  and  other  points. 

An  investigation  of  the  facts  referring  to  the  time 
of  the  domination,  after  the  colonial  period,  shows 
that  the  jurisdiction  of  Camina  had  been  extended  dur- 
ing the  later  years  toward  the  east  upon  the  juris- 
diction of  Carangas,  and  toward  the  north  and  north- 
west upon  that  of  Codpa. 

III.- 

The  Boundary  at  the  Time  of  Peruvian  Domination. 

Until  1868,  the  province  of  Tarapaca  was  only  a 
subdivision  of  the  department  of  Moquega,  and  it 
is  found  as  such  upon  plate  Number  XL VII  of  Paz 
Soldan's  " Atlas  of  Peru."  Arica  was  another  province 
of  the  same  department.  The  law  of  December  1, 
1868,  created  the  littoral  province  of  Tarapaca  which 
depended  directly  from  the  Government  at  Lima.  The 
law  of  June  15,  1875,  created  the  littoral  province  of 
Moquegua,  and  Arica  became  a  province  of  the  de- 
partment of  Tacna. 


293 

These  provinces  were  subdivided  into  districts 
which  corresponded  in  part  to  the  old  curacies  and 
districts.  The  districts  adjoining  Arica  and  Tara- 
paca, on  the  mountain  side,  were  respectively  Codpa 
and  Camiiia.  According  to  the  census  of  1876,  these 
districts  included: 

That  of  Codpa:  the  towns  of  Codpa,  Pachica,  Es- 
quina,  and  Timar,  the  village  of  Huanacahua,  the  set- 
tlements of  Marquirave,  Chetita,  Amasaca,  and  Cerro 
Blanco,  and  the  ranches  of  Cachicoca,  Grande  So- 
cabon,  Cadenas,  Ofrajilla,  Pintatani,  Chaqui  and 
Cornejo. 

That  of  Camiiia:  the  town  of  Camina,  the  villages 
of  Minimini,  Chapiquilta,  Mullure,  Quistagama,  Qui- 
sana,  and  Soga. 

Of  all  the  places  named,  as  may  be  seen  from  the 
small  map  included,  the  only  ones  adjoining  the  fron- 
tier between  the  provinces,  were,  on  the  Arica  side, 
the  towns  of  Pachica  and  Esquina  and  the  Grande  or 
Tallape  ranch  situated  upon  the  Camarones  ravine; 
and  on  the  Tarapaca  side,  the  village  of  Mullure  on 
the  banks  of  the  river  of  that  name,  which  is  the 
northern  tributary  of  the  Guayguase,  this  latter  being 
a  tributary  of  the  Caritaya,  and  this,  of  the  Cama- 
rones. 

According  to  these  facts,  we  may  immediately  dis- 
card the  theory  that  the  boundary  between  Arica  and 
Tarapaca  was  formed  by  the  Guayguase  and  Cari- 
taya Rivers.  There  is  not  any  doubt  that  the  census 
of  1876,  taken  by  the  authorities,  constitutes  irrefut- 
able evidence  as  to  the  limits  of  each  jurisdiction,  at 
least  as  to  the  points  that  were  inhabited  and  of  which 
the  census  had  been  taken.  Unfortunately,  this  ev- 
idence is  incomplete,  because  it  does  not  include  the 
very   insignificant   points,   the   inhabitants    of   which 


294 

were  counted  doubtlessly  together  with  those  of  the 
nearest  town  or  village  of  the  same  jurisdiction.  Such 
points  are  the  settlements  of  Taruguire,  Chilcaya,  and 
Surire. 

The  chartographic  documents  referring  to  the  pe- 
riod of  Peruvian  domination,  is  extremely  deficient, 
inexact,  and  even  contradictory. 

#  #  # 

The  only  original  map  of  the  province  of  Tarapaca 
was  prepared  in  1828  by  Sehores  Jorge  Smith  and  N. 
Bollaert,  at  the  request  of  the  Peruvian  Government. 

An  examination  of  the  map  and  of  Bollaert 's  re- 
port which  accompanies  the  map,  reveals  that  the 
authors  thereof  did  not  visit  the  region  of  Camarones 
except  that  part  of  it  that  is  next  to  the  sea.  Thus 
while  all  the  points  on  the  road  between  Pisagua  and 
Isluga  appear  in  detail,  the  region  that  stretches  to 
the  north,  is  left  to  the  fancy.  The  ravine  of  Cama- 
rones, also  called  Taraguire  and  Cara  on  this  map,  re- 
ceives two  tributaries  from  the  southeast:  the  Tanca 
and  the  Guayhuasa  (Guayguase)  which  appear  as  ris- 
ing on  either  side  of  the  Chulluncani  hill  which  is 
drawn  almost  thirty  kilometres  to  the  south  of  its 
true  position.  Then,  it  is  evident  that  the  Tanca 
Eiver  (the  stream  Veco  on  our  map)  and  the  Guay- 
guase are  indirect  and  secondary  tributaries  of  the 
Camarones  River. 

The  northern  boundary  of  Tarapaca,  according  to 
Bollaert 's  map,  commences  on  the  seacoast  at  18°  57', 
far  to  the  north  of  the  mouth  of  the  Camarones,  goes 
on  almost  parallel  until  it  falls  into  the  ravine  of 
Taltapia  (Taltape),  and  from  there  it  continues  as 
far  as  Chulluncani  hill.  Because  of  the  erroneous 
position  of  this  hill,  the  boundary  line  traced,  falls 
to  the  south  of  the  Guayguase  River,  but  it  is  quite 


295 

evident  that  no  positive  deductions  can  be  made  from 
a  map  as  erroneous  as  this  one  is,  at  this  point. 

In  the  map  published  by  Paz  Soldan  in  1865,  and 
in  which  the  province  of  Tarapaca  is  copied  almost 
entirely  from  Bollaert's  map,  including  the  errors  re- 
specting the  courses  of  the  Rivers  Tanca  and  Guay- 
guase  as  well  as  the  error  respecting  the  position  of 
the  Chulluncani  hill — the  boundary  line  between  the 
provinces  of  Arica  and  Tarapaca  has  been  corrected. 
This  boundary  line  coincides  along  its  entire  length 
with  the  Camarones  Elver,  and  it  is  to  be  noted  that 
the  tributary  that  is  the  origin  of  this  river,  cor- 
responds, according  to  this  map,  to  the  tributary  or 
river  called  Taruguire,  this  name  being  given  also  to 
the  source  of  the  Camarones  according  to  the  Bol- 
laert  and  Smith  map,  except  that  in  the  latter  map  it 
is  written,  ' '  Taraguire, ' '  due  evidently  to  an  ortho- 
graphic error. 

Even  though  the  Paz  Soldan  may  is  faulty  geo- 
graphically, it  cannot  be  denied  that  it  possessed  great 
probatory  value  as  the  only  chartographic  document 
that  the  negotiators  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  could 
have  had  at  hand,  and  which,  in  the  absence  of  more 
exact  and  more  d?tailed  maps,  must  have  been  con- 
sidered by  both  parties  the  official  map,  upon  the 
delivery  of  Tarapaca.  The  Government  of  Chile  on 
its  part  has  understood  it  so,  and  has  declared  ex- 
pressly, in  the  preamble  to  the  decree  of  August 
29,  1901,  that  the  Paz  Soldan  atlas  was  the  comple- 
ment to  and  the  specification  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon, 
recalling  the  fact  that  that  atlas  was  an  official  publi- 
cation of  the  Government  of  Peru,  and  could  have 
added  that  its  author  was  appointed  later,  as  I  have 
already  stated,  Chairman  of  the  Territorial  Boundary 
Commission  of  that  Republic. 


296 

For  my  part,  although  I  do  not  attribute  to  the 
boundary  indications  contained  in  this  map,  a  decisive 
character  or  one  that  would  exclude  evidence  founded 
upon  jurisdiction  and  effective  possession,  still  I  in- 
sist that  they  are  of  great  importance  in  resolving  the 
question  at  issue,  because  of  the  fact  that  Paz  Soldan, 
although  accepting  the  geographic  configuration  of  the 
territory  as  indicated  by  Bollaert  and  Smith,  did  not 
accept  the  boundary  between  Tarapaca  and  Arica  in- 
dicated by  them,  but  changed  it  and  made  it  coincide 
with  the  River  Taraguire  (Taruguire)  on  the  map 
of  the  said  Bollaert  and  Smith. 

To  this  fact  must  be  added  an  attestation  which 
cannot  be  considered  a  mere  coincidence,  and  that 
is,  that  the  line  thus  indicated  by  Paz  Soldan  passes, — 
as  has  been  observed  by  Sr.  Obrecht, — exactly  through 
the  latitude  of  the  Puquintica  hill,  primitive  boundary 
mark  between  the  districts  of  Arica  and  Carangas, 
and  a  de  facto  boundary  mark  in  the  time  of  the  Peru- 
vian rule,  as  we  shall  pass  on  to  see. 
#         •         # 

I  do  not  know  of  any  detailed  geographic  descrip- 
tion of  the  province  of  Tarapaca  published  during 
the  Peruvian  regime.  But  in  the  absence  of  such, 
there  does  exist  the  work  published  in  1886  by  Sr. 
Guillermo  E.  Billinghurst, — distinguished  Peruvian 
statesman,  and  ex-deputy  from  the  littoral  province 
of  Tarapaca  and  ex- Vice-President  of  the  Republic. 
Sr.  Billinghurst 's  "Estudio  sobre  la  geografia  de  Tara- 
paca'' (Study  of  the  Geography  of  Tarapaca),  writ- 
ten with  an  abundance  of  facts,  many  of  which  were 
obtained  by  the  author  himself  upon  his  travels,  can- 
not be  objected  to  as  evidence  favorable  to  the  Chilean 
interests,  when  we  consider  that  these  are  now  an- 
tagonistic to  the  eventual  interests  of  Peru,  from  the 


297 

special  point  of  view  of  the  northern  boundary  of  Tar- 
apaca. 

Sr.  Billinghurst  divides  "the  territory  included  in 
the  province  of  Tarapaca"  into  five  zones,  the  eastern 
most  of  which  being  composed  of  "the  Andes  Moun- 
tains and  its  respective  watersheds,"  that  is,  both 
watersheds.  He  is  very  explicit  in  this  respect,  and 
adds: 

"The  eastern  watershed  of  the  mountains  in 
this  part  of  the  Andes,  reaches  the  Bolivian  pla- 
teau. The  western  watershed  descends  until  it 
encounters  a  great  chain  of  arid  mountains  which 
cross  Tarapaca  from  north  to  south,  and  which 
are  the  highest,  after  the  Andes,  of  this  part  of 
the  country.  The  highest  peaks  of  this  great 
chain,  which  resembles  a  wall  that  re-enforces 
the  Andes,  are:  Puquintica,  Mamahuta,  (Ma- 
muta),  Pumiri,  Suriri,  Mullure,  Huaichani,  and  the 
Isluga  volcano,  at  the  northern  end  of  the  prov- 


Farther  on  he  states : 

' i  The  sulphur  deposits  in  this  province  that  are 
worked  by  the  Indians,  are  the  following:  Pu- 
quintica, Surire,  Pumiri,  etc." 

In  another  part  he  adds : 

"In  the  northern  part  of  the  province  is  found 
the  Surire  lagoon,  of  which  we  have  spoken  before. 
This  lagoon  is  situated  near  the  hill  of  the  same 
name,  and  to  the  east  of  Mullure." 

Thus,  according  to  Billinghurst,  the  Puquintica  hill 
is  found  at  the  northern  end  of  the  province  of  Tar- 
apaca, and  forms  part  of  a  great  chain  that  crosses 
the 'said  province  from  north  to  south.     The  sulphur 


298 

deposits  of  Puquintica  and  the  lagoon  of  Surire  are 
found  also  in  the  northern  part  of  the  province  of 
Tarapaca. 

These  statements  referring  to  localities,  the  iden- 
tity of  which  cannot  be  placed  in  doubt,  were  not  made 
haphazardly  or  without  previous  study,  as  is  proven 
by  the  following  detail:  after  mentioning  the  pos- 
sibility of  increasing  the  volume  of  water  of  the  Ca- 
milla ravine  by  diverting  the  streams  Mullure  and 
Guayguase  into  it,  Sr.  Billinghurst  states  that  the 
Camarones  proprietors  opposed  the  carrying  out  of 
this  work,  as  it  would  diminish  the  volume  of  water 
of  the  latter  ravine,  and  adds:  "The  two  interests 
could  be  reconciled  by  granting  the  streams  Mullure 
and  Guayguase  to  the  Camina,  and  by  helping  the 
farmers  of  Camarones  to  avail  themselves  of  the 
waters  of  the  Surire  lagoon,  which  is  situated  at  the 
foot  of  the  hill  of  that  name.  To  do  this,  it  would  be 
necessary  only  to  perforate  the  Castilluma  hillock, 
and  to  make  the  waters  come  down  through  the  Ano- 
carire  ravine." 

It  is  easy  to  understand,  upon  examining  the  map 
of  the  locality,  that  the  project  of  diverting  the  waters 
of  the  Surire  lagoon  towards  Camarones,  by  the  ra- 
vines the  come  down  from  the  slope  of  Anocarire, 
involved  the  idea  that  all  of  the  Surire  pampa  be- 
longed to  the  province  of  Tarapaca. 

#  #  * 

Sr.  Billinghurst  Js  reports  to  the  effect  that  the 
Peruvian  province  of  Tarapaca  extended  towards  the 
east  as  far  as  the  line  of  Puquintica,  and  that  towards 
the  north  it  included  the  entire  pampa  of  Surire  and 
Chilcaya — where  important  deposits  of  borate  later 
were  discovered — have  been  confirmed  recently  by  the 
abundant  evidence  gathered  in  legal  form  by  one  of 


299 

the  concerns  engaged  in  the  exploitation  of  the  borate. 

Since  1894,  borate  claims  were  made,  under  dif- 
ferent names  at  Arica,  giving  them  as  located  in  the 
Chilcaya  region;  and  at  Pisagua,  giving  them  as  lo- 
cated in  the  region  of  Surire. 

By  reason  of  the  controversy  respecting  posses- 
sion that  has  taken  place,  the  interested  parties  have 
offered  evidence  to  prove  respectively,  one,  that  the 
name  Surire  is  applied  to  the  entire  pampa  where 
borate  deposits  exist,  and  that  this  has  been  included 
always  in  the  province  of  Tarapaca  during  the  Peru- 
vian rule,  the  other,  on  the  contrary,  that  the  true  name 
of  the  borate  lagoon  is  "Chilcaya"  and  that  this  has 
been  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  civil  authorities  of 
Arica  and  of  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  of  Are- 
quipa. 

The  comparison  of  the  evidence  presented  settles 
all  doubt.  The  evidence  presented  by  the  Tarapaca 
party,  has  been  gathered  from  localities  adjoining  the 
point  in  question.  Sixty-eight  witnesses  were  called 
to  testify  in  Pisagua,  Camina,  Chapiquilta,  and  other 
towns  of  the  Cordilleras.  Of  these  witnesses,  forty-five 
were  Peruvians  who  were  born  at  Camina,  Mullure, 
Parajaya,  Isluga,  Chiapa,  Soga,  Chapiquilta,  and  other 
neighboring  localities.  Several  of  these  witnesses  had 
occupied  during  the  Peruvian  rule,  the  posts  of  Gover- 
nor, Lieutenant-Governor,  Justice  of  the  Peace,  and 
receiver.     Others  were  ranchers,  cattle-men,  etc. 

It  is  deduced  from  all  these  testimonies  that  the 
name  "pampa  and  lagoon  of  Surire"  always  has  been 
applied  by  the  inhabitants  of  Camina  and  other  points 
of  the  curacy,  to  the  entire  pampa,  surrounded  by  the 
fields  of  Surire  and  Llaco  upon  the  south,  and  Chil- 
caya upon  the  northeast.  This  is  deduced  also  from 
the  boundary   documents   already   cited,  where   it  is 


300 

stated:  "boundary  mark  called  Surire,  within  the 
lagoon  there  is  a  small  white  hill,  which  is  the  boun- 
dary mark, ' '  since  this  can  be  no  other  than  the  small, 
isolated  hill  of  Oquecollo,  which  is  rather  toward  the 
north  of  the  pampa.  In  the  accompanying  map,  the 
location  of  the  borax  claims  has  been  marked,  accord- 
ing to  the  maps  drawn  by  the  interested  parties,  maps 
that  do  not  coincide  exactly  either  in  their  bearings 
or  in  their  scales.  The  "small  white  hill"  of  Oque- 
collo, according  to  these  maps,  occupies  a  central  posi- 
tion with  respect  to  the  claims. 

From  the  depositions,  it  is  deduced  also  that  Surire 
and  its  adjoining  settlements  were  included  in  the 
province  of  Tarapaca  during  the  Peruvian  rule.  I 
shall  cite,  among  others,  the  following  depositions,  as 
being  the  most  important: 

Severo  Choque,  of  Camina,  declares  that  in  1879  he 
was  grazing  cattle  at  Chilcaya  and  was  always  under 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  authorities  at  Camina,  and  that 
he  never  had  heard,  even  from  his  ancestors,  that  that 
lagoon  or  those  fields  were  under  the  jurisdiction  of 
Arica.  He  states  that  "there  is  a  lagoon  called 
Paquisa  six  leagues  north  of  Surire  that  belongs  to  the 
department  of  Arica, ' '  and  adds  that : 

"more  than  twenty  years  ago,  lawsuits  were 
brought  by  the  inhabitants  of  Surire,  and  the 
Lieutenant-Governor  of  Mullure,  Sr.  Angel  Cus- 
todio  Fernandez  (another  of  the  witnesses),  ac- 
companied by  the  Commissioner,  Sr.  Jose  M. 
Aranibar  (also  a  witness),  appointed  by  the  Pre- 
fect of  Tarapaca  in  agreement  with  the  authori- 
ties of  Tacna  and  Arica,  proceeded  to  set  the 
boundaries  of  the  said  territories.  Governor 
Fernandez  and  Sr.  Aranibar  were  present  at  the 
act;  but  not  so,  the  Arica  Commissioners ;  and  the 
following  line,  which  has  been  respected  until  to- 


301 

day  by  the  Arica  authorities,  was  fixed;  leaving 
Canta  to  Pucupucuni,  Llareta  pampa  (Bare  Hill 
of  Llaratapampa),  Chilisaja,  Jerrajene  (Herraje 
Hill),  Castillumu,  north  of  Surire,  Achachamayo, 
and  Chilcaya,  to  the  Bolivian  frontier  upon  the 
east." 

Of  the  eight  points  named,  only  two,  Canta  and 
Chilisaja,  cannot  be  identified.  But  the  remaining  six, 
are  sufficient  to  make  possible  the  perfect  determina- 
tion of  the  line,  to  the  foot  of  Puquintica. 

Jose  Mariano  Aranibar,  an  aged  man  of  eighty-six, 
a  native  of  Camina,  who  was  Justice  of  the  Peace  of 
this  town  for  two  terms  of  office  during  the  Peruvian 
administration  declares  that,  ' '  Surire  and  its  environs 
always  were  a  department  under  my  jurisdiction 
(Camina),  that  is,  of  the  province  of  Tarapaca." 
Agreeing  with  the  statement  of  Severo  Choque,  he 
adds  that  before  the  war,  and  while  he  was  Justice  of 
the  Peace  at  Camina,  he  was  ordered  by  the  Governor 
to  effect,  together  with  a  commission  that  would  come 
from  Arica,  the  fixing  of  the  boundary  line  between 
Arica  and  Pisagua.  He  complied,  accompanied  by  Sr. 
Andres  Zamora  and  Sr.  Angel  Custodio  Fernandez, 
and  as  the  Arica  Commissioner  did  not  appear,  they 
proceeded  with  the  demarcation,  fixing  the  line  far  to 
the  north  of  the  Surire  lagoon. 

These  statements  are  completed  and  confirmed  by 
those  of  Sr.  Anjel  Custodio  Fernandez,  another  aged 
man  of  ninety  years,  also  a  native  of  Camina,  who  de- 
clares : .  "I  have  known  the  lagoon  for  many  years,  as  I 
have  been  raised  at  Pumire,  and  as  I  have  a  ranch  four 
leagues  from  Surire,  which  is  called  Ancocollo  (Anco- 
coyo  in  the  accompanying  map,  at  the  head  of  the  Sura- 
Sura  River).  I  was  also  Lieutenant-Governor  of  Mull- 
ure  for  a  period  of  two  years  during  the  Peruvian  ad- 


302 

ministration,  and  I  know  that  its  claims  were  granted 
at  Pisagua. ' '  Asked  if  the  name  Chilcaya  was  applied 
only  to  the  fields  at  the  eastern  side  of  the  Surire  la- 
goon, he  affirms  that  "it  is  so,  and  upon  those  fields 
the  Bolivians  formerly  placed  their  cattle  to  graze,  as 
did  also  the  Islugas,  the  fields  being  at  the  foot  of  the 
Puquintica,  where  there  are  also  some  old  huts."  He 
repeats  that  he  owns  a  large  ranch,  Ancocollo,  and 
states  that  during  the  entire  lifetime  that  he  has  re- 
sided there,  in  an  official  capacity  and  as  a  private 
citizen,  no  other  authorities  ever  have  existed  than 
those  of  Tarapaca.  That  for  eighty  years  he  has  known 
that  those  grounds  (Surire  and  its  environs)  belong  to 
Tarapaca,  and  that  not  any  Arica  authority  ever  has 
existed  there.  That  during  the  Peruvian  administra- 
tion, while  he  was  Lieutenant-Governor  of  Mullure,  his 
jurisdiction  reached  as  far  as  the  source  of  the  Cama- 
rones  ravine,  which  is  composed,  north  of  Surire,  of 
the  waters  of  the  Anocarire. 

Among  other  important  statements,  there  is  the  one 
made  by  Sr.  Andres  Avelino  Castro,  who  states  that  he 
knows  the  Surire  lagoon,  as  he  was  born  there,  and 
that  he,  together  with  the  community  of  Isluga,  had 
staked  claims  upon  the  borate  at  the  lagoon,  as  he  him- 
self had  discovered  the  said  substance.  That  he  pays 
the  licenses  upon  the  said  claims  at  the  municipality  of 
Pisagua,  where  the  claims  were  granted  years  ago,  as 
he  did  not  acknowledge  any  authorities  other  than 
those  of  that  port. 

Two*  aged  men  of  Isluga,  Carmelo  Mamani,  eighty- 
five  years  old,  and  Eustaquio  Castro,  seventy,  both  de- 
clare that  they  have  worked  always  at  Surire,  and  that 
the  officials  appointed  by  the  Governor  of  Camina  ruled 
there.  Another  aged  man  of  Isluga,  Sr.  Romualdo 
Garcia,  seventy-five  years  old,  states  that  he  has  visited 


303 

Surire  and  Chilcaya  frequently  since  his  childhood  and 
that  he  never  has  known  any  other  authorities  than 
those  of  Mullure.  That  these  fields  of  Surire  belong 
and  always  have  belonged  to  the  Castros  and  to  the 
Mamanis  (the  previous  Isluga  witnesses)  who  live  on 
the  same  side  of  the  lagoon. 

Sr.  Gonzalo  Contreras  states  that  he  was  born  at 
Camina  and  has  been  an  official  during  the  Peru- 
vian rule,  being  Governor  of  Camina,  and  that  during 
his  administration,  Surire  and  all  its  environs  belonged 
to  and  were  under  his  jurisdiction,  and  that  the  same 
thing  has  been  true  now  during  the  two  terms  of  office 
that  he  has  served  as  subdelegate  of  the  Chilean  ad- 
ministration. He  adds  that  his  father,  Sr.  Luis  Con- 
treras, also  was  Governor  of  Camina  during  the  Peru- 
vian regime,  and  that  he  never  has  heard  that  gentle- 
man tell  of  the  Arica  authorities  interfering  with  his 
administration  of  those  territories.  That  during  the 
Peruvian  administration,  his  jurisdiction  (that  of 
Camiiia)  included  the  ravine  of  Camarones  to  the 
north  of  Surire,  from  where,  following  the  customs  of 
the  country,  he  ordered  cattle  to  be  brought  from 
Surire  and  Mullure,  and  the  inhabitants  always  obeyed 
the  orders  that  he  imparted. 

Sr.  Juan  S.  Ossio,  a  native  of  Zapiga,  who  has  lived 
at  Camina  since  his  childhood,  and  who  has  prepared 
a  rather  detailed  sketch  of  the  region,  states  *  *  that  the 
lagoon  in  question  is  called  Surire,  that  the  old  Indians 
from  time  immemorial  gave  this  name  to  it  because  of 
the  great  abundance  of  ostriches  found  there,  which,  in 
the  Aimara  language,  are  called  Sure.  Thus  he  con- 
firms that  the  claims  of  Senores  Polastri  &  Co.,  and  his 
own  claims  are  situated  at  the  said  lagoon.  He  adds 
besides,  that  the  ravine  of  Camarones  rises  between 
the  hills  of  Macusa  and  Anocarire,  which  are  situated 


304 

to  the  north  of  the  lagoon  of  Surire.  He  adds  that  on 
the  hills  of  Arintica  and  Puquintiea,  which  are  situated 
upon  the  north  side  of  the  lagoon,  there  are  a  great 
number  of  sulphur  claims,  which  have  been  granted  by 
the  courts  at  Pisagua.  Some  of  these  claims  are  being 
worked  actively,  having  paid  their  taxes  for  many 
years  at  Pisagua,  the  authorities  at  Arica  never  having 
molested  their  owners  or  disputed  the  rights  of  the 
Pisagua  officials. 

I  have  believed  it  necessary  to  establish  the  dates  of 
the  borate  claims  in  Pisagua  and  in  Arica  because  on 
the  lists  published  by  one  of  the  interested  parties,  al- 
though there  are  borate  claims  solicited  from  the 
courts  of  Arica  since  1894,  those  solicited  from  the 
Pisagua  courts  date  only  from  1898.  According  to  the 
information  that  I  have  obtained,  it  is  effective,  never- 
theless, that  in  1894  two  claims  of  fifty  hectares  each, 
at  Chilcaya  and  Surire,  were  solicited  from  the  courts 
of  Pisagua,  one  of  the  witnesses,  Sr.  Juan  S.  Ossio,  be- 
ing interested  in  one  of  the  claims.  In  1895,  a  small 
claim  of  three  hectares  at  Oquecollo  was  solicited  by 
the  natives  of  Isluga,  Castros,  Condores,  Mamanis, 
Challapas,  etc.  In  1896,  many  claims  at  Surire,  Chull- 
uncane,  and  the  Llacho  pampa,  having  a  total  area  of 
three  thousand  hectares,  were  solicited,  some  by  natives 
and  others  by  resident  of  Iquique  and  Pisagua. 

Without  going  into  further  details  respecting  the  re- 
maining depositions,  I  shall  state  only  that  in  them, 
as  in  the  others,  it  is  observed  that  the  witnesses,  upon 
the  part  of  Tarapaca,  have  been  able,  because  of  their 
residence,  profession,  or  business,  to  prove  their  state- 
ments, and  have  not  limited  themselves  to  answering 
affirmatively  or  negatively  the  questions  asked  of  them. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  evidence  offered  upon  the  part 
of  Arica,  and  gathered  in  that  city  itself,  does  not  give 


305 

forth  any  positive  information.  The  cross-examina- 
tion tends  to  prove  that  "the  lagoon  of  Chilcaya  is 
situated  in  the  sixth  rural  snbdelegation  of  the  depart- 
ment of  Arica,"  that  "the  borate  deposits  in  dispute 
are  found  at  the  said  lagoon  of  Chilcaya/'  and  that 
"the  straw-fields  of  Surire,  situated  at  the  foot  of  the 
hill  of  that  name,  are  found  far  to  the  south  of  the 
lagoon  of  Chilcaya,  and  that  in  Surire  there  are  not 
any  borate  deposits  to  be  worked. ' ' 

Of  the  thirty-five  witnesses  whose  depositions  are 
filed  in  the  papers  bearing  upon  the  case,  upon  the  part 
of  Arica,  twenty-two  are  residents  of  the  towns  of 
Arica  and  Tacna,  two  of  Ticnamar,  two  of  Belen,  one 
of  Codpa,  and  only  three  have  resided  for  a  brief  space 
of  time  in  Chilcaya.  These  do  not  express  the  reason 
for  such  residence,  excepting  the  witness  Sr.  Onofre 
Torres,  of  Santiago,  employed  by  the  interested  party, 
who  states  that  he  also  has  lived  in  Chilcaya  where  he 
was  formerly  District  Judge.  These  witnesses  all 
limit  themselves  to  answering  the  questions  asked  of 
them  during  the  cross-examination:  "it  is  true  and  I 
am  certain  of  it,"  "so  I  have  heard,"  or  "I  do  not 
know. "  It  is  to  be  observed,  besides,  that  the  evidence 
gathered  at  Arica  does  not  cast  any  light  upon  the 
question  of  the  boundary  during  the  Peruvian  admin- 
istration. 

Therefore,  the  contradictory  evidence  gathered  at 
the  request,  respectively,  of  the  concessionaries  of  the 
borate  deposits,  on  the  one  part  at  Pisagua,  and  on  the 
other  part  at  Arica,  proves  decisively  that  the  pampa 
of  Surire  is  situated  within  the  department  of  Pisagua. 
According  to  some  of  the  witnesses,  the  boundary  goes 
up  the  ravine  of  Camarones,  whose  source  they  con- 
sider to  be  one  of  the  ravines  that  come  down  from  the 
Anocarire.    According  to  others,  the  boundary  would 


306 

pass  through  Pocopocuni,  Castilluma,  and  Chilcaya, 
extending  over  farther  to  the  east.  The  doubt  thus 
remains  reduced  to  a  very  exact  limit. 

But  if  this  result  is  considered  in  connection  with  the 
information  contained  in  Sr.  Billinghurst 's  report  and 
in  Sr.  Paz  Soldan's  pamphlet,  the  doubt  disappears 
completely.  Thus  the  boundary  between  the  curacies 
of  Codpa  and  Camina  as  given  by  Paz  Soldan,  coin- 
cides exactly,  between  the  boundary  marks  of  Chaca 
and  Pucupucune,  with  the  boundary  to  which  the  wit- 
ness Aranibar  referred  in  the  deposition  that  I  have 
cited. 

Then  also,  there  is  no  doubt  that  Sr.  Billinghurst  in- 
cludes under  the  name  of  lagoon  of  Surire,  which  he 
places  in  the  northern  part  of  the  province  of  Tara- 
paca,  the  entire  borate  pampa  including  Llacho  and 
Polloquere,  as  he  states,  "in  the  pampa  there  exist  a 
few  geysers  which  constantly  discharge  dense  columns 
of  steam."  And  these  geysers,  I  am  informed  by  the 
engineer  Sr.  Caro,  are  found  at  the  southeastern  part 
of  the  lagoon,  between  the  hills  of  Huarmicollo  and 
Polloquere. 

The  depositions  of  the  witnesses  Ossio,  Munoz  and 
others,  also  concur  with  Sr.  Billinghurst 's  information 
to  the  effect  that  the  sulphur  deposits  of  Puquintica 
belong  to  Tarapaca.  Lastly,  I  shall  observe  that  the 
name  Chilcaya,  which  according  to  the  evidence 
offered  at  Arica,  was  the  name  given  to  the  pampa  and 
lagoon  in  the  middle  of  which  rises  the  small  hill 
Oquecollo,  is  not  mentioned  once  in  Sr.  Billinghurst  Js 

book. 

#         #         # 

Finally,  I  must  add  to  these  facts,  the  information 
gathered  by  the  engineer  Sr.  Victor  Caro,  who  was  ap- 


307 

pointed  for  that  purpose  by  me,  according  to  the  in- 
structions copied  at  the  beginning  of  this  report. 

As  you  can  see  from  Sr.  Caro's  report,  of  which  I 
include  a  copy,  the  statements  gathered  by  this  en- 
gineer upon  the  ground,  from  the  inhabitants  Carmelo 
Garcia,  Sebastian  Mamani,  and  Dionisio  Mamani, 
quite  agree  with  the  line  indicated  by  Paz  Soldan,  and 
with  the  results  obtained  from  the  judicial  investiga- 
tion referred  to  before.  It  is  not  beside  the  point  to 
observe  that  Sr.  Caro  worked  entirely  independently 
of  the  judicial  investigation,  of  which  he  did  not  know 
until  his  return  to  Santiago,  and  the  existence  of  which 
was  brought  to  light  at  Arica  by  the  Chairman  of  the 
Commission,  Sr.  Anibal  Contreras,  who  asked  the  In- 
tendant  of  Tacna  to  have  a  copy  of  it  made,  which  copy 
is  the  one  that  I  have  used.  Then  also  not  any  of  the 
Indians  who  accompanied  Sr.  Caro  had  testified  pre- 
viously. 

The  conclusions  reached  from  Sr.  Caro's  report  are 
as  follows : 

1. — The  existence,  during  the  Peruvian  administra- 
tion of  an  old  boundary  line  that  separated,  at  the  same 
time,  the  curacies  of  Codpa  and  Camina,  and  the  Peru- 
vian provinces  of  Arica  and  Tarapaca,  or,  that  is,  the 
present  departments  of  Arica  and  Pisagua,  cannot  be 
doubted. 

2. — This  boundary  line  left  the  pasture-grounds  of 
Taruguire,  which  were  and  still  are  a  part  of  the  Illa- 
pata  ranch  at  Esquifia,  within  the  jurisdiction  of  Arica. 

3. — Of  the  points  and  boundary  marks  set  out  in  the 
document  cited  by  Paz  Soldan  and  by  the  Indian 
Severo  Choque  in  his  declaration,  those  that  have  been 
identified  upon  the  ground,  are  indicated  in  the  follow- 
ing table,  where  I  have  marked  with  an  interrogation 
mark  (?)  those  about  which  there  is  not  absolute  cer- 
tainty, and  with  two  marks  ( 11)  those  that  may  be  con- 
sidered doubtful : 


308 


Points  appearing  on  the 
document  published  by 
Paz  Soldan. 


Points  Indicated  by 
Severo  Choque,  of 
Camina. 


Points  identified  by  the 
engineer,  Sr.  Victor 
Caro. 


Pampa  of  Caltaya 

and  Aispunta. . .      Canta  ( 11) 


Ancoaque. 
Ancohuma. 


Lirpo   (water- 
spring) 

Anisirca  (11)   

Pucupucune Pucupucuni.  .  . , 

Guaylla  (!) 

Porco  (11) Llareta  pampa 


Chulluncani, 


Caltaja  (11 
Chaca.  .  .  . 


Boundary  mark 
Quecaye  on  the 
hillock.  ...  .... 


Jerrajene. 


Castilluma.  .  . 
Achachamayo. 
Chilcaya 


Arepunta 

Caltaya 

Ausipa 

Jancoaque 

Jancuma 

Pilloco 

Lirpo 

Pucupucune 
Guaillacahue  (1 
Cerro  Polado 

(pampa  of 

Llaretas) 
Chulluncayani 

Hill 

Pass  of  Chaca 
Hill  of  Herraje 


Castilluma  Hill 
Achachamayo  Hill 
Puquintica  Hill 


I  consider  this  result  to  be  satisfactory  because  it 
permits  the  establishing  of  a  line  based  upon  facts  of 
Peruvian  origin,  and  which  cannot,  therefore,  be  im- 
punged  by  that  Republic,  if  it  sometime  should  come  to 
occur  that  this  line,  which  now  separates  two  Chilean 
provinces,  should  become  an  international  boundary 
line. 


309 

In  the  setting  out  of  the  boundary  line,  which,  com- 
plying with  your  orders,  I  propose  to  mark  by  means 
of  iron  pyramids,  I  have  not  followed  strictly  any  of 
the  previous  enumerations  of  points,  but  taking  into 
consideration  the  various  opinions  cited  before,  as  well 
as  the  facts  adduced  by  Sr.  Obrecht  and  by  the  Bound- 
aries Office,  I  have  taken  the  Eiver  Ajatama  to  be  the 
tributary  of  origin  of  the  River  Camarones,  as  far  as 
the  confluence  of  the  Blanco  River  where  the  boundary 
mark  Blanco  or  Jancoaque  is  found.  Therefore,  from 
Arepunta  to  the  River  Blanco,  the  Ajatama  River  will 
constitute  the  interprovincial  boundary. 

From  the  boundary  mark  River  Blanco  or  Jan- 
coaque, the  dividing  line  will  follow  a  straight  course 
to  the  mark  Pen  a  Blanca  or  Jancuma,  from  there  to 
the  water-spring  of  Lirpo,  to  the  ranch  of  Pucupucune, 
to  the  crest  of  the  Pelado  hill  of  the  Llareta  pampa, 
and  will  continue  along  the  crest  of  the  Chulluncayani 
hill,  through  the  pass  of  Chaca,  along  the  crests  of  the 
Herraje  hill,  of  the  Castilluma  hill,  and  of  the  Acha- 
chamayo  hill,  from  there  to  the  crest  of  the  Arintica, 
and  will  end  at  the  crest  of  the  Puquintica. 

IV. 

Facts  Regarding  the  Period  of  Chilean  Rule. 

Although  I  think  that  the  right  of  Chile  to  the  north- 
ern boundary  of  Tarapaca,  as  I  just  have  indicated  it, 
is  proven  clearly  by  what  I  have  exposed  so  far,  I  still 
can  add  other  facts  to  those  that  refer  to  the  period  of 
the  Peruvian  rule,  to  show  that  neither  the  administra- 
tive, nor  the  geographic,  nor  the  ecclesiastic  authori- 
ties have  failed  to  recognize,  under  the  Chilean  regime, 
the  old  boundary  line  that  separated  the  jurisdictions 
of  Tarapaca  and  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  at  their  eastern 
extremities. 


310 

The  decree  of  May  9,  1885,  divided  the  Department 
of  Arica  into  six  subdelegations,  the  sixth  being  Codpa 
whose  southern  border  is,  according  to  the  decree,  "the 
boundary  line  of  the  department. ' '  Codpa  was  sub- 
divided into  three  districts,  the  last  of  which,  Pachica, 
1  i  shall  include  the  territory  south  of  the  subdelegation 
that  ends  at  the  valley  of  Camarones",  with  the  towns 
and  villages  of  Huancarane,  Esquiiia,  and  others  to- 
ward the  east." 

But  another  decree  of  November  3,  1885,  which  di- 
vided the  department  of  Pisagua  into  five  subdelega- 
tions, established  that  the  fifth,  that  of  Camarones,  "is 
bounded  on  the  north  by  the  ravine  of  Camarones," 
and  that,  "it  is  divided  into  three  districts:  first  dis- 
trict, that  of  Camarones,  second  district,  that  of 
Huancarane,  and  third  district,  that  of  Esquiiia  which 
is  bounded  on  the  north  by  the  boundary  line  of  the 
subdelegation  in  this  part." 

Lastly,  by  a  third  decree,  of  August  28,  1888,  it  is 
declared  that  "the  town  of  Pachica  must  be  considered 
hereafter  a  part  of  the  department  of  Pisagua,  just  as 
are  the  towns  of  Camarones,  Esquiiia  and  Huan- 
carane." 

The  comments  of  which  these  decrees  have  been  the 
object,  are  not  pertinent  to  the  purpose  of  this  report. 
I  have  cited  them  to  show  that  they  refer  only  to  that 
part  where  "the  valley  of  Camarones"  is  found,  that 
is,  to  the  east  of  Arepunta,  The  reference  to  the  other 
villages  toward  the  east,  made  in  the  first  decree,  re- 
lates probably  to  Pachica  and  Illapata,  as  it  is  revealed 
by  the  last  of  the  decrees. 

Nevertheless,  if  it  is  considered  that  these  villages 
"toward  the  east"  include  Mullure,  Surire  and  Chil- 
caya,  it  is  evident  that  it  is  the  intention  of  the  last  of 
the  decrees  to  include  them  in  the  department  of 
Pisagua. 


311 

The  only  Chilean  geographic  publication  which  may 
be  considered  an  authority  upon  the  point  in  question, 
is  the  "Diccionario  Geografico  de  las  Provincias  de 
Tacna  y  Tarapaca"  (Geographic  Dictionary  of  the 
Provinces  of  Tacna  and  Tarapaca),  published  at  Iqui- 
que  in  1890  by  Sr.  Francisco  Risopatron. 

The  facts  which  the  said  dictionary  contains  respect- 
ing the  localities  that  I  shall  mention,  refer  to  the  divi- 
sion between  the  two  provinces  that  I  have  indicated 
above : 

"Anocarire. — (Page  7).  Stream  that  runs 
along  the  ravine  of  Camarones,  and  that  rises  at 
the  hill  of  the  same  name.  Department  of  Pisa- 
gua,  province  of  Tarapaca.  Its  ravine  bears  the 
same  name." 

" Choquenanta. — (Page  27).  Sulphur  deposit, 
one  of  the  most  important  because  of  the  quantity 
and  good  quality  of  the  product,  department  of 
Pisagua,  province  of  Tarapaca. " 

"  Chulluncani. — (Page  28).  —  Chulluncani. — 
I  am  melting,  in  the  Quechua  language).  Snow- 
capped peak  of  the  Andes  at  19°  latitude  and  69° 
30'  longitude,  approximately.  Department  and 
province  of  Tarapaca/' 

"Mullure. — (Page  58).  Stream  that  runs  along 
the  ravine  of  Camarones,  department  of  Pisagua, 
province  of  Tarapaca,  etc/, 

"Puquintica. — (Page  67).  Great  sulphur  de- 
posit, situated  on  the  hill  of  the  same  name,  at  103.5 
kilometres  from  Camina,  etc/' 

"Puquintica. — (Page  67).  Lofty  peaks  of  the 
Andes  mountains,  5.600  metres  above  the  sea. 
Situated  at  18°  30'  30"  latitude  and  68°  30'  35"  longi- 
tude, in  the  department  of  Arica,  province  of 
Tacna," 

"Sorasura. — (Page  94).  Stream  running  along 
the  ravine  of  Camarones,  rising  in  the  Andes 
mountains  at  the  foot  of  the  Anocarire  and  of  the 


312 

Surire.    Department  of  Pisagua,  province  of  Tara- 
paca. ' ' 

"Surire. — (Page  94).  Lagoon  situated  at  the 
foot  of  the  Surire  hill  at  the  head-waters  of  the 
ravine  of  Camarones.  Department  of  Pisagua, 
province  of  Tarapaca. ' ' 

It  must  be  noticed  that  the  author  places  the  sulphur 
deposits  of  Puquintica  within  the  jurisdiction  of  Ca- 
mina, that  is,  of  Pisagua  and  of  Tarapaca,  while  he 
places  the  peaks  of  Puquintica  in  Arica,  but  adjoining 
the  inter-provincial  boundary  line. 

Finally,  the  official  information  gathered  in  the 
papers  bearing  upon  the  suit  brought  by  the  borate  con- 
cerns, agrees  with  the  facts  mentioned  above. 

The  Apostolic  Vicar  at  Iquique  states : 

i 

"The  lagoon  of  Surire  and  its  adjacent  villages 
are  within  the  parish  of  Saint  Thomas  of  Camina, 
and  therefore  are  under  the  ecclesiastic  jurisdic- 
tion of  this  Apostolic  Vicarage  of  Tarapaca,  and 
not  of  the  ecclesiastic  authorities  of  the  province 
of  Tacna.  The  parish  priest  at  Camina  has  always 
exercised  jurisdiction  over  the  territory  to  which 
I  refer.  On  the  map  of  the  province  of  Tarapaca 
made  by  the  fiscal  saltpetre  deposits  delegation, 
and  on  which  the  boundaries  of  the  parish  of  Surire 
and  its  villages  are  set  out  also,  they  are  placed 
within  the  parish  of  Camina. ' ' 

It  is  easy  to  prove  the  accuracy  of  this  last  assertion 
by  means  of  the  said  map,  where  the  size  given  to  the 
lagoon  of  Surire  shows  that  that  name  is  applied  there 
to  the  entire  borate  pampa.  Besides,  its  author,  the  en- 
gineer, Sr.  Juan  Francisco  Campana,  fiscal  delegate  of 
saltpetre  deposits,  reports  in  the  legal  records  already 
cited,  "when  the  undersigned  prepared  the  map  pub- 
lished in  November  of  1896,  entitled  'Map  of  the  Salt- 


313 

petre  Region  from  Arica  to  Tocopilla,'  the  lagoon  of 
Surire  was  placed  within  the  department  of  Pisagua,  as 
all  the  facts  obtainable  at  that  time  agreed  npon  that 
location. ' ' 

The  Civil  Registry  Officer  at  Camina,  npon  the  same 
occasion  informed  the  Conrt  as  follows : 

"I  have  been  Civil  Registry  Officer  for  the  cir- 
cumscription of  Camina  for  eight  years,  and  dur- 
ing that  time  I  have  exercised  jurisdiction  over 
Surire,  as  three  subdelegations  belong  to  me :  Ca- 
mina, in  which  is  included  the  lagoon  of  Surire, 
Camarones,  and  Aroma.  All  the  inhabitants  of 
Surire,  recognizing  the  authorities  at  Camina  from 
time  immemorial,  apply  to  me  for  all  matters  con- 
cerning my  office.  I  call  your  attention  also  to  the 
fact  that  as  Subdelegation  Judge,  I  have  fulfilled 
the  duties  entrusted  to  me  by  your  Court,  at  that 
same  lagoon  and  its  environs." 

This  report  is  confirmed  by  that  of  the  Governor  of 
Pisagaia,  who  states : 

"It  is  true  that  Surire  and  its  dependencies 
have  been  considered  as  belonging  to  Pisagua, 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  subdelegate  of  the 
fourth  subdelegation,  Camina,  of  this  depart- 
ment. ' ' 

V. 

A  Critical  Study  of  Some  Objections. 

In  order  not  to  destroy  the  clearness  of  this  exposi- 
tion, I  have  abstained  heretofore  from  taking  into  con- 
sideration the  opinions  adverse  to  the  boundary  line 
that  I  have  recommended  as  legitimate  and  lawful. 

I  have  refuted,  nevertheless,  in  a  general  way,  the 
argument  presented  by  the  Minister  of  Bolivia,  to  the 
effect  that  Chile  could  not  advance  farther  to  the  east 


314 

than  the  rise  of  the  ravine  of  Camarones,  or  that  is,  the 
divortium  aquarum.  That  argument  tended  to  give 
more  consistency  to  the  Bolivian  pretension  of  advanc- 
ing toward  the  west  as  far  as  the  crests  of  Chulluncani, 
Mullure,  and  Pumiri  (which  there  form  the  dividing 
line  of  the  waters),  based  upon  a  pretended  boundary 
of  1721,  according  to  which  the  town  of  Isluga  also  was 
included  within  the  district  of  Carangas.  This  last  cir- 
cumstance would  be  sufficient  to  discredit  the  said 
boundary  as  it  is  notorious  that  the  community  of 
Isluga  ever  has  belonged  to  Tarapaca.  I  do  not  be- 
lieve it  necessary  to  go  into  greater  details  respecting 
this  point  at  present,  as  I  have  discussed  this  question 
extensively  in  a  report  presented  on  September  28, 
1903,  to  the  Department  of  Foreign  Relations,  refer- 
ring to  our  eastern  boundary  with  Bolivia. 

It  is  to  be  noted,  however,  that  the  argument  of  the 
divortium  aquarum,  which,  if  admissible,  would  be 
favorable  to  Bolivia,  did  not  originate  in  that  country 
but  in  Chile,  although  for  a  different  purpose  than  that 
had  in  mind  by  the  Foreign  Department  of  the  neigh- 
boring Eepublic. 

It  was  the  engineer  Sr.  Agustin  Renjifo,  who  in  an 
unofficial  report  dated  February  14,  1900,  declared, 
after  invoking  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  that  since  the 
Camarones  Eiver  rises  necessarily  at  the  divortium 
aquarum,  "the  boundary  line  (between  Pisagua  and 
Arica)  may  start  therefore  from  a  point  on  the  divor- 
tium aquarum,  the  Republic  of  Bolivia  being  the  com- 
mon boundary  of  both  departments  on  the  east  side, 
the  point  of  intersection  of  these  three  territories, 
Arica,  Pisagua  and  Bolivia,  must  converge  at  the  same 
place  on  the  divortium  aquarum  on  the  Bolivian  bor- 
der." 

I  have  demonstrated  clearly,  in  the  first  part  of  this 
report,  that  to  give,  to  the  mere  mention  of  boundaries 


315 

contained  in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  the  meaning  that  Sr. 
Renjifo  does,  would  be  to  frustrate  the  intention  ex- 
pressed in  that  Treaty,  that  the  cession  of  the 
province  of  Tarapaca  was  ' '  unconditional ' '  and  in- 
cluded its  entire  territory.  I  now  propose  to  show  how 
lacking  in  logic  are  those  who,  in  Chile,  for  diverse 
reasons,  have  accepted  Sr.  Renjifo  's  statement. 

The  conclusion  deduced  by  Sr.  Renjifo  in  the  state- 
ment cited  is  that,  since  the  ravine  of  Camarones 
separates  in  Arepunta  into  two  branches,  the  Ajatama 
and  the  Caritaya,  the  boundary  between  Pisagua  and 
Arica,  must  be  necessarily  one  of  these  two  rivers  from 
its  source.    He  continues : 

"Of  these  two  rivers,  the  Ajatama  receives  the 
watersheds  of  the  Anocarire  and  Chuquinando 
(Chuquiananta)  hills  which  are  to  the  north  of 
and  at  a  great  distance  from  Huaihuasi  (Guai- 
guasi),  and  beyond  the  point  of  intersection  be- 
tween the  divortium  aquarum  and  the  Republic 
of  Bolivia." 

"Therefore  it  is  impossible  for  the  Ajatama 
River  to  be  the  boundary  line  between  Arica  and 
Pisagua.  It  must  be  noted  besides,  that  its  course 
turns  away  notably  from  the  general  direction  of 
the  Camarones  River. 

' '  The  Caritaya  must  be  considered  the  principal 
tributary  of  the  Camarones  :  First,  because  of  the 
volume  of  its  waters  and  the  permanency  of  its 
system  as  far  as  the  Bolivian  border ;  Second,  be- 
cause it  follows  the  same  direction  as  the  course 
of  the  Camarones ;  and  Third,  because  this  direc- 
tion is  inclined  more  to  the  parallel  that  is  the 
exact  line  from  east  to  west." 

Before  passing  on,  I  must  call  attention  to  a  cir- 
cumstance that  renders  unnecessary  a  discussion  of  the 
importance  of  the  different  statements  of  a  geographic 


316 

nature  made  by  Sr.  Renjif  o;  this  circumstance  con- 
sists of  the  inaccuracy  of  the  said  statements.  In  fact, 
after  a  thorough  and  well  verified  investigation  of  all 
the  tributaries  of  the  Camarones  River,  above  Are- 
punta,  I  may  assure  you : 

1.  That,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  enclosed  map,  the 
hydrographic  basin  of  the  Ajatama  River  has  a  greater 
area  than  that  of  the  Caritaya ;  that  the  system  of  this 
latter  river  is  not  permanent,  and  that  the  volume  of 
its  waters  during  some  seasons  is  less  than  that  of  the 
Ajatama. 

2.  That,  as  is  shown  also  by  the  small  map  enclosed, 
the  general  direction  of  the  Caritaya  River  is  far  from 
being  the  same  as  that  of  the  Camarones,  and  that, 
on  the  contrary,  the  direction  of  the  latter,  from  Cama- 
rones to  Arepunta,  coincides  almost  exactly  with  that 
of  the  Ajatama  River  and  its  tributary,  the  Surasura. 

3.  That  the  Caritaya  River  forms  a  much  more  pro- 
nounced angle  with  the  parallel,  than  does  the  Aja- 
tama. 

After  making  the  statements  that  I  have  refuted, 
Sr.  Renjif  o  continues : 

"The  Caritaya  rises  upon  the  Huaihuasi  hill 
which,  as  we  have  said  before,  is  situated  at  the 
point  of  intersection  between  the  dividing  line  of 
the  waters  and  the  Republic  of  Bolivia,  thus  com- 
plying with  essential  conditions  for  serving  as  the 
departmental  boundary  line,  as  an  integral  part 
of,  and  as  the  natural  continuation  of,  the  River 
and  ravine  of  Camarones.' ' 

This  new  statement,  as  may  be  seen,  implies  the  ac- 
ceptance of  the  boundary  as  sustained  by  Bolivia  in 
this  region,  or,  that  is,  the  cession  to  that  Republic  of 
the  entire  district  of  Isluga.  Still  more,  according  to 
Sr.  Renjif o's  reasoning,  the  possibility  of  complying 


317 

with  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  would  be  dependent  upon  the 
acceptance  of  this  Bolivian  boundary,  because  if  the 
line  is  passed  through  the  Capitan  and  Puquintica 
hills,  it  results  that  there  is  not  any  point  that  will 
fulfill  the  "essential  conditions"  that  Sr.  Renjifo  sup- 
poses to  be  necessary,  and  therefore  it  would  be  im- 
possible to  draw  the  northern  boundary  line  of  Tara- 
paca,  according  to  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  as  he  inter- 
prets it. 

Now,  then,  it  is  almost  unnecessary  to  repeat  that, 
the  Treaty  of  Ancon  could  not  and  did  not  legislate 
respecting  the  Bolivian  border,  and  it  is  sufficient  to 
point  out  the  inadmissible  consequence  that  I  just, 
have  indicated,  to  demonstrate  the  fallacy  of  the  argu- 
ment that  produces  such  a  consequence. 

I  have  paused  over  Sr.  Renjifo's  report,  although 
it  is  not  official,  because  it  has  served  as  the  basis  for 
the  contentions  of  those  in  Chile  who  favor  the  placing 
of  the  borate  deposits  of  Surire  and  Chilcaya  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  Arica. 

I  must  mention  the  fact,  however,  that  there  ap- 
peared, almost  on  the  same  date  as  that  of  Sr.  Ren- 
jifo's  report,  February  3,  1900,  and  inserted  in  the 
same  publication,  another  report  signed  by  the  en- 
gineer, Sr.  H.  Wallace  to  the  same  effect,  but  which 
contains  still  more  glaring  geographic  inaccuracies, 
such  as  the  following: 

"If.  the  problem  refers  only  to  the  location  of 
the  lagoon  of  Chilcaya,  the  question  is  yet  clearer 
and  more  simple,  because  the  River  Caritaya  as 
well  as  the  Ajatama,  rise  and  flow  to  the  south 
of  the  said  lagoon. ' ' 

A  glance  at  the  map  of  the  region  will  enable  one 
to  appreciate  the  inaccuracy  of  this  assertion. 


318 

Sr.  Mariano  Guerrero  Bascunan,  who  as  delegate  of 
the  Supreme  Government  for  Tacna,  presented  a 
lengthy  report  dated  November  20,  1900  studied 
therein  the  question  of  the  boundary  line  between  the 
departments  of  Pisagua  and  Arica. 

Sr.  Guerrero  cites  the  geographers  Astaburuaga, 
Espinosa,  Vidal  Gormaz,  and  Paz  Soldan  to  come  to 
the  conclusion  that,  according  to  them,  "the  source  of 
the  ravine  and  River  Camarones  is  on  the  Andes 
Mountains,  at  the  boundary  line  between  Chile  and 
Bolivia. ' '  This  citation  is  lacking  in  probatory  value, 
as  not  any  one  of  the  geographers  mentioned  explored 
personally,  or  had  access  to  any  description  of,  the 
sources  of  the  River  Camarones. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  those  whom  Sr.  Guerrero 
calls  " explorers,' '  Senores  Sefioret  and  Boonen  Rive- 
ra, who  did  not  explore  the  said  sources.  The  only 
ones  who  may  be  called  explorers,  in  this  case,  are 
Senores  Renjifo  and  Wallace,  and  upon  the  facts  gath- 
ered by  them,  are  based  exclusively  the  conclusions  to 
which  Sr.  Guerrero  has  come,  as  may  be  seen  clearly 
from  the  following  phrases  from  his  report : 

"It  has  been  proven  also  by  the  report  of  these 
last  two  engineers  (Senores  Renjifo  and  Wallace) 
that  the  Camarones  River  keeps  its  name  until  it 
reaches  the  place  called  Arepunta,  where  it  takes 
those  of  its  tributaries,  the  Ajatama  and  the 
Caritaya.  And  that  of  these  tributaries,  the  Cari- 
taya  is  the  only  one  that  continues  the  boundary 
line  formed  by  the  Camarones,  as  far  as  the  Bo- 
livian border.  Therefore,  it  must  be  deduced  that 
the  starting  point  of  the  boundary  line,  at  the 
intersection  of  the  divortium  aquarum  with  the 
Republic  of  Bolivia,  must  be  fixed  at  the  Huay- 
huasi  River,  or,  that  is,  at  the  source  of  the  Cari- 
taya. ' ' 


319 

Thus  Sr.  Guerrero,  in  spite  of  the  rather  detailed 
study  that  he  made  of  the  general  geographic  maps, 
could  not  obtain  from  them  any  conclusive  fact,  which 
in  reality  they  do  not  contain,  and  was  obliged  to 
abide  by  the  inexact  statement  that  he  attributes  to 
Sr.  Renjifo,  to  the  effect  that  the  Caritaya  River  con- 
tinues the  line  of  the  Camarones  as  far  as  the  Bolivian 
border,  and  that  "it  is  the  only  one"  that  complies 
with  this  condition. 

If  the  Bolivian  border  were  really  the  divortium 
aquarum,  the  Caritaya  River  would  not  be  '  *  the  only ' ' 
tributary  of  the  Camarones  rising  at  the  said  line.  As 
may  be  seen  from  the  map,  leaving  aside  the  ravines 
of  lesser  importance,  the  following  rivers  rise  there : 
the  Mulluri,  the  Veco  (of  Caritaya),  the  Chuquiananta, 
the  Surasura,  and  the  Palcoaillo. 

Almost  simultaneously  with  Sr.  Guerrero's  report, 
on  November  23,  1900,  a  petition  was  presented  to  the 
Supreme  Government  by  S.  Jorge  Phillips,  represent- 
ing the  Compania  Boratera  de  Chilcaya  (Borate  Com- 
pany of  Chilcaya)  accompanied  by  a  pamphlet,  in  which 
the  principle  of  the  divortium  aquarum  is  brought  to 
bear  in  favor  of  the  Caritaya  River  as  the  boundary 
line,  but  interpreted  in  such  a  manner  that  there  is 
greater  inconsistency  than  in  the  case  of  Seiiores  Ren- 
jifo and  Guerrero  Bascunan.    \ 

Starting  from  the  basis,  false  in  this  case,  that  Chile 
is  obliged  to  fix  her  boundary  line  with  Bolivia  accord- 
ing to  the  said  principle  of  geographic  demarcation — 
the  case  being  that  the  boundary  to  which  Chile  has  a 
right,  is  the  old  boundary  between  Peru  and  Bolivia, 
without  being  subject  to  any  geographic  principle — 
starting  from  that  false  basis,  as  I  say,  Sr.  Phillips 
states : 


320 

"The  question  under  discussion  being  related 
with  that  of  our  Bolivian  border,  the  demarcation 
principle  of  the  highest  crests  dividing  the  waters, 
can  not  be  abandoned,  because  if  Sr.  Obrecht's 
report  were  accepted,  according  to  which  the  boun- 
dary line  would  follow  along  the  Ajatama  River 
to  its  source  and  from  there  to  the  north  along 
the  principal  ridge  of  the  Andes,  it  would  result 
that  the  lagoon  of  Chilcaya  and  a  great  part  of 
the  territory  that  is  unquestionably  Chilean  or 
Peruvian,  would  undoubtedly,  become  part  of  the 
Bolivian  territory." 

Here,  the  lack  of  logic  in  the  argument  that  I  have 
cited,  is  seen  clearly,  because  if  it  were  true  that  "the 
demarcation  principle  of  the  highest  crests  dividing 
the  waters,  can  not  be  abandoned,"  then  how  can  the 
territory  of  Chilcaya  and  its  environs,  which  are  to 
the  east  of  the  divortium  aquarum  "be  unquestionably 
Chilean  or  Peruvian"? 

In  his  petition,  Sr.  Phillips  makes  still  another  state- 
ment as  follows : 

"Even  though  the  Ajatama  River  were  taken 
as  the  continuation  of  the  Camarones  *  *  *  it  would 
be  logical  and  natural  to  fix  the  boundary  line 
from  the  source  of  the  Ajatama  to  the  Bolivian 
border,  not  by  skirting  the  lagoon  of  Chilcaya 
along  the  hills  that  extend  to  the  west  of  it,  *  *  * 
but  *  *  *  by  starting  from  the  source  of  the  said 
Ajatama  and  following  the  direction  of  the  geo- 
graphic parallel,  thus  reaching  the  Bolivian  bor- 
der. In  this  case  the  lagoon  of  Chilcaya  would 
still  remain  in  the  department  of  Arica,  as  may  be 
seen  clearly  from  the  map  accompanying  the  pam- 
phlet— a  map  prepared  by  the  official  commission 
which  was  presided  over  by  Captain  Arturo  Wil- 
son, of  the  Navy." 


321 

The  map  that  accompanied  this  report,  scaled  at  one 
centimeter  per  kilometer,  does  not  bear  ont  the  pre- 
vious statement;  there  is  in  this  respect  a  complete 
disagreement  between  the  topography  of  the  map  pre- 
pared by  Sr.  Renjifo  and  signed  also  by  Sr.  Wilson, 
and  that  of  the  one  prepared  by  Senores  V.  Caro  and 
Espinosa,  of  this  Department.  According  to  the  latter 
map,  the  accuracy  of  which  has  been  verified,  the  most 
northerly  crest  of  the  Anocarire  hill,  from  where  the 
most  remote  sources  of  the  Ajatama  River  rise,  is  sit- 
uated at  18°  46'  30"  latitude,  while  the  most  northerly 
borate  deposits  reach  only  as  far  as  18°  48'  latitude. 
Therefore  the  parallel  drawn  from  the  crest  of  the 
Anocarire  to  the  Bolivian  border,  still  would  pass  1° 
30',  or  2700  metres,  to  the  north  of  the  last  borate  de- 
posits. I  mention  this  fact  only  so  as 'not  to  leave 
standing  a  mistaken  fact,  because  in  principle  there  is 
not  any  reason  for  considering  it  more  "logical  and 
natural"  to  follow  a  parallel  than  to  follow  a  line  from 
hill  to  hill.  The  only  "logical  and  natural"  thing  to 
do  when  setting  out  the  boundaries  of  a  property  to 
be  transferred,  is  to  investigate  where  those  boun- 
daries were  before  the  transfer,  and  this  has  not  been 
done  either  by  Sr.  Renjifo  or  by  Sr.  Guerrero  Bas- 
cunan. 

The  principle  of  the  divortium  aquarum  is  invoked 
anew, — in  phrases  that  reveal  still  more  the  lack  of 
logic  in  the  argument, — by  Sr.  Blanlot  Holley  in  a 
petition  and  memorial  which  were  published,  asking 
for  the  derogation  of  the  Supreme  Decree  of  August 
29,  1900,  which  prescribed  that  the  demarcation  of  the 
northern  boundary  of  Tarapaca  should  be  carried  out 
in  conformity  with  the  line  indicated  by  Paz  Soldan 
in  his  map  of  Peru. 

The  said  memorial  maintains  that  the  boundary  line 
"between  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Tarapaca  and 


322 

Bolivia  should  be  drawn  according  to  the  doctrine  sus- 
tained by  Chile  in  her  dispute  with  the  Argentine  Re- 
public, of  following  the  dividing  line  of  the  water B." 
Then  in  the  following  line  it  declares  that  " if  the  boun- 
dary line  between  the  departments  of  Pisagua  and 
Arica  is  carried  along  the  Caritaya  as  far  as  the  divor- 
tium aquarum,  the  borate  deposits  of  Chilcaya  will  re- 
main to  the  west  of  the  Bolivian  border  and  in  Chilean 
territory." 

In  his  eagerness  to  apply  by  all  means  the  geo- 
graphic principle  of  the  division  of  the  waters,  Sr. 
Blanlot  Holley  even  states  that,  ' '  the  acceptance  of  the 
boundary  line  proposed  by  Senores  Obrecht  and  Pi- 
zarro  would  force  Chile  to  give  up  the  theory  of  the 
divortium  aquarum,  thus  shattering  with  her  own  hand 
the  traditional  basis  upon  which  she  has  founded  the 
defense  of  her  international  rights  in  matters  of 
boundary  demarcation,  and  thus  appearing  before  the 
world  as  a  dishonest  litigant." 

It  will  be  observed  in  this  respect  that  Sr.  Blanlot 
Holley,  as  well  as  those  who  have  preceded  him  in  the 
defense  of  the  same  cause,  that  have  omitted  to  justify 
the  origin  of  the  statement,  "the  theory  of  the  divor- 
tium aquarum' }  has  been  to  Chile  a  "traditional 
basis ' '  in  the  setting  out  of  her  borders.  I  have  proven 
already  that  this  statement  is  not  well  founded.  Even 
in  the  case  of  our  Argentine  border,  the  theory  of  the 
divortium  aquarum  according  to  the  Treaty  of  1881, 
should  be  applied  only  between  parallels  27  and  52. 
The  said  theory  has  not  been  applied  either  to  the 
south  of  parallels  52,  or  north  of  parallel  27,  in  the 
Puna  of  Atacama,  where  it  was  not  either  invoked  by 
Chile  or  applied  by  the  arbitrator,  Mr.  Buchanan. 

But,  under  the  hypothesis  that  Chile  would  be 
obliged  to  apply  the  said  theory  respecting  the  eastern 


323 

borders  of  Tacna  and  of  Tarapaca,  how  could  the 
pampa  of  Surire  and  Chilcaya  remain  within  the  de- 
partment of  Arica  when  it  is  to  the  east  of  the  divor- 
tium  aquarumf  This  has  not  been-  explained  by  any 
of  those  who  favor  the  boundary  at  the  rivers  Cari- 
taya  and  Huaihuasi,  nor  is  it  possible  to  explain  it. 

It  is  not  beside  the  point  to  note  also  that  Sr.  Blanlot 
Holley  has  founded  his  argument  upon  erroneous  in- 
formation obtained  before,  by  Sr.  Guerrero  Bascunan 
from  Sr.  Mateo  Paz  Soldan 's  " Geography  of  Peru." 
According  to  Sr.  Guerrero  Bascunan,  Paz  Soldan  had 
our  border  with  Bolivia  end  at  "the  mountains  of 
Negrillos,  of  which  the  Huaihuasi  is  the  first  foothill, 
where  the  Caritaya  River  rises.  *  *  *."  Sr.  Blanlot 
Holley  is  even  more  precise,  as  he  states  that  the  Cari- 
taya rises  on  the  Negrillos  mountain. 

■  The  map  in  the  small  scale  that  I  enclose  shows  how 
erroneous  are  both  statements,  as  the  town  of  Negrillos 
is  nearly  50  kilometers  east  by  northeast  of  the  hill  of 
Huaihuasi. 

The  facts  given  by  Sr.  Mateo  Paz  Soldan,  although 
erroneous  in  themselves,  and  wrongly  interpreted  by 
Senores  Guerrero  Bascunan  and  Blanlot  Holley,  in  the 
part  that  is  correct,  lead  to  a  very  different  conclusion 
from  that  reached  by  the  latter  gentlemen.  These  facts, 
which  are  found  on  page  124  of  the  said  work,  and  also 
on  pages  105,  611,  and  892,  of  Sr.  Mariano  Felipe  Paz 
Soldan 's  "Diccionario  Geografico  del  Peru"  (Geog- 
raphy Dictionary  of  Peru),  are  as  follows : 

"Road  from  the  Valley  of  Camarones  to  Bolivia. 

"From  Camarones,  a  ranch  on  the  valley  of 
Camarones  *  #  *  14  leagues  (78  kilometers). 

"To  Camina,  a  town  in  the  district  of  Camina. 
#  *  *  16  leagues  (89  kilometers). 


324 

"To  Berenguela,  a  ranch,  10  leagues  (56  kilo- 
meters). 

"To  Negrillos,  a  barren  mountain  separating 
both  Republics.  *  *  *  10  leagues  (55 J^  kilo- 
meters )." 

To  prove  that  there  has  not  been  any  typographic 
error  in  copying  the  distances,  I  shall  transcribe  the 
following  from  the  Dictionary  that  I  have  mentioned, 
page  611: 

"Negrillos,  barren  mountain  that  separates  our 
Republic  from  that  of  Bolivia,  at  the  department 
of  Tarapaca:  50  leagues  (27SJ/2  kilometers)  from 
Camarones  and  10  leagues  (55j4  kilometers)  from 
Berenguela." 

From  the  enclosed  map,  in  which  the  road  from 
Camarones  to  the  town,  of  Negrillos  is  traced  through 
Suca,  Camina,  and  Berenguela,  it  is  seen  clearly  that 
this  road  does  not  pass  through  Huaihuasi,  and  that  the 
"mountain  of  Negrillos"  to  which  Paz  Soldan  refers, 
judging  from  its  distance  from  Berenguela,  must  be  the 
one  that  extends  to  the  south  of  the  town  of  Negrillos, 
which  is  on  the  parallel  of  Chilcaya,  toward  the  hills 
of  Cabaraya  and  Isluga.  Taking  into  consideration 
the  true  topography  of  the  ground,  and  especially  the 
fact  that  the  ranch  and  pampa  of  Berenguela  are  almost 
on  the  same  meridian  as  the  hill  of  Huaihuasi,  it  is 
impossible  that  the  point  called  Negrillos  on  Paz  Sol- 
dan's  itinerary,  which  must  be  at  a  distance  of  55^ 
kilometers  from  Berenguela  in  the  direction  of  Bolivia, 
could  be  near  the  sources  of  the  River  Caritaya.  Thus, 
the  principle  of  the  divortium  aquarurn,  does  not  lead, 
in  this  case,  as  has  been  pretended,  to  the  point  on  the 
boundary  line  indicated  by  Paz  Soldan.  If  the  loca- 
tion of  the  point  called  "Negrillos"  by  this  geographer, 


325 

is  determined  from  the  distance  of  55^4  kilometers  to 
the  east  of  Berengnela,  at  which  it  is  fonnd,  even  con- 
sidering the  turns  of  the  road  over  which  the  itinerary 
should  be  measured,  the  resulting  point  will  coincide 
with  the  boundary  line  that  I  have  adopted. 

Besides  the  statements  that  I  have  refuted,  Senores 
Guerrero  Bascunan  and  Blanlot  Holley,  have  made 
others  of  a  legal  nature,  pertaining  to  international 
law,  the  refutation  of  which  I  consider  foreign  to  the 
work  entrusted  to  me  by  your  Department.  Besides, 
I  believe  that  I  have  justified  my  not  taking  into  con- 
sideration the  said  statements,  by  enunciating  two  prin- 
ciples to  which  I  attribute  fundamental  importance, 
and  the  mere  enunciation  of  which  carries  with  it  the 
proofs  of  the  equity  on  which  they  are  based  and  of 
the  convenience  that  its  application  ought  to  bring 
about.    These  are  the  following: 

1.  The  territory  of  the  littoral  province  of  Tarapaca 
having  been  transferred  to  Chile  by  virtue  of  a  treaty 
that  does  not  pretend,  as  I  have  shown,  to  define  ex- 
actly the  boundaries  of  that  province,  Chile  has  the 
right  and  the  duty  to  investigate  what  those  bounda- 
ries were  at  the  time  of  the  transfer. 

2.  Chile  possessing  a  precarious  title  to  the  terri- 
tory of  Tacna  and  Arica  which  borders  on  the  south 
upon  the  province  of  Tarapaca,  she  has  a  perfect  right 
to  set  out  the  boundary  line  between  the  two,  and  al- 
though this  demarcation,  as  the  Foreign  Department 
has  observed,  "in  no  case  would  destroy  the  rights 
conferred  upon  Peru  by  the  Treaty  of  Aiioon,"  it 
would  serve  to  strengthen  the  rights  conferred  upon 
Chile  by  that  same  Treaty,  in  the  eventual  case  of  the 
separation  of  the  province  of  Tacna  from  her  terri- 
tory. It  is  convenient,  therefore,  that  the  Government 
of  Chile  make  use  of  this  right  as  soon  as  possible, 


326 

and  determine,  by  virtue  of  a  decree,  the  detailed  out- 
line of  the  boundary  line  that  it  will  adopt.  Thus,  and 
only  thus,  will  we  add  to  the  legal  and  traditional 
titles  that  I  have  revealed  in  this  report,  the  title  of 
possession,  the  importance  of  which  has  beeen  forced 
upon  us  before  judges  and  tribunals. 

Conclusion. 

In  concluding,  I  have  the  honor  of  informing  you 
that  the  northern  boundary  line  of  the  province  of 
Tarapaca,  between  Arepunta  and  the  Bolivian  border, 
that  corresponds,  according  to  the  investigations  that 
I  have  exposed  hereby,  to  the  Peruvian  interprovincial 
dividing  line  at  the  time  of  the  cession  of  Tarapaca  to 
Chile,  is  as  follows : 

The  Ajatama  River  as  far  as  the  point  at  which  the 
Blanco  or  Surasura  River  joins  it,  from  there  a 
straight  line  to  the  old  boundary  of  Jancuma  or  Penas 
Blaneas,  to  the  water-spring  of  Lirpo,  to  the  ranch  of 
Pucupucune,  to  the  crest  of  the  Cerro  Pelado  of  Llare- 
tapampa,  and  then  passing  over  the  line  of  the  peaks 
of  those  of  Chulluncayany,  Viscachitambo,  through  the 
pass  of  Chaca,  to  the  Herraje  hill,  to  the  Castilluma 
hill,  to  the  Achachamayo  hill,  to  the  Arintica  hill,  and 
to  the  Puquintica  hill. 

This  line  will  be  set  out,  upon  the  ground,  accord- 
ing to  the  outline  indicated  in  the  map  that  has  been 
prepared  by  the  engineers  of  this  Department,  and  that 
I  include  in  this  report. 

As  this  line  is  founded  chiefly  upon  official  Peruvian 
publications  such  as  the  census  of  1876,  the  map  and 
pamphlet  regarding  boundaries  published  by  Sr.  Ma- 
riano Felipe  Paz  Soldan,  the  geographic  work  by  Sr. 
Guillermo  E.  Billinghurst,  and  the  depositions  of  the 
natives,  of  Peruvian   extraction  in    Tarapaca,    Chile 


327 

would  be  fully  justified  in  sustaining  it,  in  case  that 
Tacna  and  Arica  should  return  to  Peru  according  to 
the  possibility  foreseen  by  the  Treaty  of  Ancon. 

Trusting  that  this  commission  has  carried  out  sat- 
isfactorily the  work  entrusted  to  it  by  the  Supreme 
Government,  I  take  pleasure  in  returning  to  your  De- 
partment the  documents  that  were  sent  to  me  with  the 
note  dated  January  20,  1903. 

May  God  keep  you. 

Alejandro  Bertrand. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Interior  of  Chile. 


Supreme  Decree  Fixing  the  Limits  Between  the  De- 
partments of  Arica  and  Pisagua. 

No.  1786. 

Santiago,  May  4,  1904. 

Today  there  is  decreed  the  following: 

Whereas  that,  in  the  Treaty  of  Peace  and  Friend- 
ship with  Peru,  of  October  20,  1883,  as  well  as  in  the 
laws  of  October  31,  1884,  which  created  the  provinces 
of  Tarapaca  and  Tacna,  when  fixing  the  northern 
limit  of  the  former  and  the  southern  limit  of  the  latter, 
it  is  said:  "the  ravine  and  River  Camarones,"  with- 
out specifying  in  detail  the  points  forming  that  bound- 
ary line  starting  from  Arepunta — where  join  the  vari- 
ous tributaries  which  form  the  River  Camarones — to 
the  frontier  of  Bolivia ; 

Whereas,  the  decrees  of  May  9  and  November  5, 
1885,  and  of  August  28,  1888,  when  establishing  the 
boundaries  of  the  sub-delegations  and  districts  be- 
tween the  contiguous  departments  of  Arica  and  Pisa- 
gua make  reference  to  those  set  forth  by  the  laws  in 


328 

the  respective  departments  and  those  laws  in  turn 
when  referring  to  the  boundaries  of  the  departments, 
only  refer  to  the  limits  set  forth  for  the  two  provinces ; 
that  this  ambiguity  in  fixing  the  boundary  of  a  part 
of  that  territory  has  given  origin  to  a  conflict  of  juris- 
diction between  the  authorities  of  the  departments  of 
Arica  and  Pisagua;  and 

Whereas,  it  being  in  the  realm  of  the  judiciary  to 
pronounce  judgment  on  the  legal  merits  of  jurisdic- 
tional acts  that  might  have  been  performed  simul- 
taneously by  the  authorities  of  both  departments  in  the 
territory  mentioned  above,  the  present  decree  cannot 
affect  the  civil  rights  that  those  acts  of  jurisdiction 
may  have  originated;  and 

Having  taken  into  consideration  the  report  and  maps 
made  and  presented  by  the  Chief  of  the  Boundary 
Office,  according  to  which  the  location  of  the  boundary 
line  limiting  the  province  of  Tarapaca  on  the  north 
at  the  time  of  its  cession  to  Chile — a  boundary  that 
was  sustained  in  the  Treaty  and  laws  referred  to 
above — is  being  demarked  on  the  ground. 

I.  Degree: 

The  line  of  demarkation  of  the  northern  boundary 
of  the  province  of  Tarapaca  between  Arepunta  and 
the  frontier  of  Bolivia  is  the  following: 

The  river  of  Ajatama  up  to  the  point  where  it  is 
joined  by  the  River  Blanco ;  from  there  a  straight  line 
to  the  ancient  boundary  of  Jancuna  or  Penas  Blancas, 
from  there  another  line  to  the  waterhole  of  Lirpo ;  an- 
other to  the  ranch  of  Pucupucune ;  another  to  the  peak 
of  Pelado  hill  of  Pampa  Llareta,  and  from  there  by  a 
line  passing  over  the  peaks  of  Chulluncayani,  Viscachi- 
tambo,  the  pass  of  Chaca,  Herraje  hill,  Catilluma  hill, 
Achachamayo  hill,  Arintica  hill  and  Puquintica  hill. 


329 

The  Boundary  Office  is  charged  with  the  demarka- 
tion  of  that  line  on  the  ground  by  means  of  iron  pyra- 
mids. 

Let  the  report  be  published  in  the  Diario  Official  and 
the  enclosed  map  be  sent  to  the  Ministry  of  Industry 
the  Public  Works  for  its  files  in  the  Section  of  Geog- 
raphy and  Mines  of  that  Ministry. 

Let  it  be  recorded,  registered,  communicated  and 
published. 

Riesco. 

Rafael  Sotomayor. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  to  Minister  of 
Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 

[Translation.] 

Lima,  July  16,  1 904. 
Mr.  Minister  : 

In  No.  7,901  of  the  Diario  Oficial  of  the  Republic  of 
Chile  for  the  14th  of  last.  May,  there  was  published 
Decree  No.  1,786  dated  the  4th  of  the  same  month,  by 
which  your  Government  fixes  the  line  of  demarcation 
of  the  northern  boundary  of  Tarapaca  from  the  point 
of  Arepunta  and  as  far  as  the  hill  of  Puquintica,  situ- 
ated between  the  province  of  Arica  and  that  of  Ta- 
rapaca as  far  as  the  frontier  of  Bolivia,  as  follows : 

"The  Ajatama  River  up  to  the  point  where  it 
is  joined  by  the  Blanco  River;  from  there  a 
straight  line  to  the  ancient  boundary  of  Jancuma 
or  Peiias  Blancas;  from  there  to  the  water-hole 
of  Lirpo ;  another  to  the  ranch  of  Pucupucune ; 
another  to  the  peak  of  Pelado  hill  of  Llareta 
Pampa ;  and  from  there  by  a  line  passing  over  the 
peaks  of  Chulluncayani,  Viscachitambo,  the  pass 


330 

of  Chaca  and  the  hills  of  Herraje,  Castilluma, 
Achachamayo,  Arintica  and  Puqnintica. '  ' 

Although  the  reservations  which  this  Chancellery 
formulated  in  the  notes  sent  to  the  Chilean  Legation 
in  Peru,  January  15,  1900,  and  the  subsequent  dec- 
laration which  the  Chilean  representative  made  in 
a  communication  of  the  17th  of  the  same  month,  "that 
in  no  case  the  decision  of  his  Government  (on  the 
boundaries  of  the  subdelegations  of  Chilcaya  and 
Surire)  whatever  it  might  be,  would  be  able  to  affect 
the  rights  which  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  confers  to  Peru, ' ' 
would  be  sufficient  to  safeguard  those  rights  against 
the  undue  scope  which  the  recent  decree  of  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Chile  sought  to  attribute  to  it,  neverthe- 
less, not  only  the  dispositions  contained  therein,  but 
also  the  considerations  upon  which  the  said  decree 
was  founded,  oblige  me,  in  order  to  safeguard  the 
territorial  interests  of  the  Peruvian  province  of  Arica 
(a  part  of  the  district  called  in  Chile  the  Province  of 
Tacna)  which  my  Government  considers  to  be  effec- 
tive, to  communicate  with  you  directly  because  of  the 
present  absence  of  a  Peruvian  Legation  in  Chile  and 
of  a  Chilean  Legation  in  Peru. 

In  fact,  granted  the  precarious  position  which  Peru 
has  in  those  provinces,  until  it  may  be  decided  to 
whom  will  belong  their  final  possession,  the  dis- 
positions which  your  Government  might  dictate  con- 
cerning the  territorial  demarcation  must  not  transcend 
that  of  internal  regime  since  any  other  disposition 
would  require  the  agreement  of  Peru,  which  retains 
wholly  the  rights  awarded  it  by  the  Treaty  of  October 
20,  1883,  arranged  between  both  States.  But  in  the 
first  part  of  the  decree  it  is  affirmed  that  that  Treaty 
does  not  specify  in  detail  the  points  which  form  the 
northern  boundary  of  the  province  of  Tarapaca  and 


331 

southern  boundary  of  Tacna  (including  that  of  Arica) 
from  Arepunta,  where  are  joined  the  different  branches 
which  form  the  Camarones  Biver;  and  before  the 
last  part  reference  is  made  to  information  and  to  a 
plan  presented  by  the  Boundary  Bureau  according 
to  which  the  boundary  line  is  settled  in  the  land  ' '  which 
limited  Tarapaca  at  the  time  of  its  cession  to  Chile, 
a  boundary  maintained  by  the  Treaty  and  by  laws 
mentioned  above/ '  and  which  is  determined  in  this 
decree  by  the  above  mentioned  points. 

Such  a  resolution  is  not  reduced  then  to  a  measure 
of  internal  administration  in  territories  subject  to  dif- 
ferent conceptions  of  the  authority  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  Chile;  but  it  constitutes  an  interpretation  of 
the  laws  determining  the  limits  in  question,  which  de- 
termination cannot  be  accepted  by  the  Government 
of  Peru. 

By  the  Treaty  of  Peace  mentioned  there  was  ceded 
to  Chile  the  territory  of  the  "littoral  province  of  Tara- 
paca ; ' '  that  is  to  say,  the  section  of  Peruvian  territory 
known  by  that  name.  It  is  therefore  indisputable,  and 
the  decree  to  which  I  refer  accepts  it,  that  the  limit 
between  Pisagua  (the  northern  district  of  that  pro- 
vince) and  the  province  of  Arica  can  be  none  other 
than  the  one  pointed  out  by  the  Peruvian  laws  pre- 
vious to  October  20,  1883. 

Tarapaca,  before  forming  a  separate  territorial  dis- 
trict, belonged  up  to  1837  to  the  department  of  Ar- 
equipa;  from  this  year  it  came  to  form  a  part  of  the 
littoral  department  of  Tacna,  from  December  1,  1868, 
it  was  raised  to  a  littoral  province,  still  having  as  its 
boundary  the  ravine  and  River  Camarones.  In  har- 
mony with  this  demarcation,  the  census  of  1876  pointed 
out  as  districts  belonging  to  the  littoral  province  of 
Tarapaca  those  districts  of  Iquique,  Pica,  Pisagua, 


332 

Tarapaca,  Camilla,  Chiapa,  Sibaya,  and  Mamma,  all 
situated  to  the  south  of  the  Camarones  River,  and 
from  its  principal  affluent  the  Caritaya,  It  results, 
consequently,  that  even  if  that  Treaty  of  Peace  and 
Friendship  of  October  20,  1883,  does  not  specify  in 
detail  the  points  which  form  the  dividing  line  between 
the  provinces  of  Tarapaca  and  Arica,  the  general 
terms  which  it  employs,  being*  with  reference  to  the 
demarcation  which  existed  in  conformity  with  Peru- 
vian laws,  leave  the  boundary  established  with  suffi- 
cient precision  because,  since  the  province  of  Tara- 
paca has  been  separated  from  the  department  of  Tacna 
in  order  to  form  the  littoral  province  which  was  later 
on  ceded  to  Chile,  it  is  clear  that  that  which  expressly 
was  not  included  in  the  segregation  continued  in  the 
principal  section  which  was  the  department  of  Tacna, 
the  province  of  Arica  forming  a  part  thereof,  accord- 
ing to  Peruvian  demarcation. 

From  what  is  explained  above,  it  is  deduced  that 
the  decree  of  your  Government  referred  to,  has 
adopted  as  a  boundary  the  Eiver  of  Ajatama  and  the 
points  which  are  indicated  as  a  continuation,  instead 
of  having  taken  the  River  Caritaya  and  the  places 
which  belonged  to  it  as  a  complement ;  thus  segregat- 
ing a  section  of  the  province  of  Arica  which  belongs 
to  it  in  order  to  incorporate  that  section  into  Tarapaca. 

Such  a  right  of  property  has  been  recognized  by  the 
Court  of  Appeals  of  Tacna  in  the  sentence  of  December 
6, 1901,  which  has  protected  the  inhabitants  of  the  prov- 
ince of  Arica  in  the  possession  of  the  natural  riches  to 
be  found  south  of  the  boundary  established  by  the  de- 
cree of  May  4,  and  also  by  the  distinguished  Chilean 
engineer  Sr.  Renjifo,  commissioned  officially  in  1898  by 
your  Government  to  draw  up  a  map  of  the  Camarones 
region. 


333 

When  one  proceeded  with  a  different  standard,  de- 
parting from  the  course  marked  by  historical  ante- 
cedents and  by  Peruvian  laws,  one  has  fallen  into 
wrong  conclusions  and  contradictions,  there  being  re- 
vealed nevertheless  the  tendency  to  advance  the  true 
boundary  of  Tarapaca  toward  the  north. 

Thus  the  Governor  of  Pisagua,  in  his  report  of 
March,  1900,  and  the  Bureau  of  Geography  and  Mines 
of  the  Department  of  Public  Works  of  Chile,  main- 
tained that  the  limit  between  those  provinces  was  con- 
stituted by  the  ravine  of  Humayane  which  opens  into 
the  ravine  of  Camarones  on  the  right  bank.  There  is 
a  disagreement  between  previous  opinions,  and  the  re- 
port which  soon  afterwards  was  issued  concerning  this 
question  by  the  Director  of  the  Astronomical  Observa- 
tory in  Santiago.  The  conclusions  to  which  Sr.  Bert- 
rand  the  Director  of  the  Boundary  Bureau,  arrives  are 
also  different  and  they  are  the  same  conclusions  repro- 
duced in  the  decree  of  May  4th.  All  this  shows  that  not 
even  as  a  geographical  work  has  the  official  opinion  in 
Chile  concerning  these  boundaries  been  consistent. 

May  it  be  permitted  to  me,  then,  to  conclude  that  the 
decree  which  is  the  subject  of  this  protest  is  not  founded 
on  the  true  titles  of  the  boundaries  between  the  prov- 
inces of  Arica  and  Tarapaca,  and  that  upon  making  the 
boundary  between  them  it  has  segregated  a  noticeable 
portion  of  land  belonging  to  the  first  of  these  provinces 
concerning  which  Peru  retains  its  rights  to  add  it  to 
the  second  province  which  was  adjudged  to  .Chile  by 
the  Treaty  of  Ancon. 

By  all  that  which  has  been  explained,  I  make  in  the 
name  of  my  Government  the  corresponding  observa- 
tions with  respect  to  that  decree,  in  such  a  way  that 
there  may  never  be  affected  the  rights  of  Peru  in  what 
concerns  the  boundary  of  the  province  of  Arica,  which 


334 

could  not  be  established  except  with  respect  to  its  in- 
ternal regime. 

With  this  motive  I  offer  you,  Mr.  Minister,  the  as- 
surance of  my  high  and  distinguished  consideration. 

Albeeto  Elmore. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 


Report  Presented  by  Director  of  Boundary  Office  of 
Chile  to  Minister  of  Interior  of  Chile. 

[Translation.] 

Santiago,  August  6,  1904. 
Mr.  Minister: 

You  have  been  kind  enough  to  place  before  me  the 
protest  formulated  before  you,  on  the  16th  of  last 
month,  by  the  Government  of  Peru,  respecting  decree 
Number  1786  of  May  4th  last,  enacted  by  the  Ministry 
of  Interior,  which  sets  out  the  points  for  the  boundary 
line  between  the  departments  of  Pisagua  and  Arica, 
east  of  Arepunta,  which  is  the  point  of  origin  of  the 
ravine  and  River  Camarones. 

This  protest,  written,  it  seems,  in  ignorance  of  the 
report  of  the  Boundaries  Office  which  served  as  the 
basis  for  the  decree,  contains  several  mistakes  in  fact 
which  I  hasten  to  point  out  to  you  so  that  you  may 
refer  to  them  in  your  answer.  Otherwise,  silence  in 
this  respect  might  be  interpreted  as  an  acceptance. 

1.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  affirmed  that  the  decree  of 
May  4th  "constitutes  an  interpretation  of  the  laws 
that  determine  the  boundaries  in  question. ' ' 

In  the  third  paragraph  of  my  report  (Official  Bulle- 
tin, Number  7901,  page  1532),  I  have  cited  the  Peru- 
vian laws  of  December  1,  1868,  and  of  June  15,  1875, 


335 

neither  of  which  is  the  basis  for  determining  the  boun- 
dary line  in  question,  east  of  Arepunta.  The  decree  of 
May  4th  can  not  then  contain  an  interpretation  of  a  dis- 
position that  does  not  exist. 

2.  The  protest  then  affirms  that,  according  to  the 
census  of  1876,  all  the  districts  of  the  province  of  Tara- 
paca,  including  that  of  Camina,  were  situated  to  the 
south  of  the  Camarones  River  and  of  its  chief  tribu- 
tary, the  Caritaya. 

In  that  part  of  my  report  already  cited,  I  have  called 
attention  to  the  fact  that  the  census  of  1876  contains 
the  proof  to  the  effect  that  the  district  of  Camina  ex- 
tended to  the  north  of  the  Caritaya  River,  as  the  town 
of  Mullure  which  is  situated  to  the  north  of  the  Cari- 
taya, is  counted  among  the  towns  of  the  said  district. 
The  same  report  (Official  Bulletin,  already  cited,  page 
1533)  contains  the  minute  depositions,  taken  from  wit- 
nesses who  were  natives  of  Mullure — in  which  place  a 
Lieutenant-Governor  resided — depositions  that  do  not 
leave  any  doubts  as  to  the  fact  that  the  said  town  was 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  Camina  and  of  Tarapaca. 

3.  The  protest  affirms  that  the  decree  of  May  4  has 
separated  a  section  of  the  province  of  Arica,  to  incor- 
porate it  to  the  province  of  Tarapaca. 

The  report  upon  which  the  decree  is  based,  shows 
too  well  that  there  is  not  any  such  segregation.  The 
Peruvian  laws  never  determined  the  boundary  line. 
The  line  was  traditional,  and  drawn  according  to  the 
testimonies  that  have  been  cited,  which  agreed  with 
the  geographic  facts  published  by  the  ex-Congressman 
from  Tarapaca  and  Vice-President  of  Peru,  Sr.  Bil- 
linghurst.  The  decree  merely  sets  out  the  points  which 
composed  this  old  boundary  line. 

4.  The  protest  affirms  that  the  decision  of  the  Court 
of  Appeals  of  Tacna,  December  6,  1901,  has  confirmed 


336 

that  the  section  segregated  belongs  to  the  province  of 
Arica  and  has  protected  the  interests  of  its  inhabitants 
regarding  their  possession  of  the  natural  riches  of  the 
region. 

The  decision  alluded  to,  of  which  I  include  a  copy, 
does  not  confirm  any  right  of  possession  nor  does  it 
protect  any  interests.  On  the  contrary,  it  establishes 
that ' '  since  the  location  of  the  borate  deposits  of  Chil- 
caya  or  Surire  is  the  fundamental  reason  for  the  suit" 
it  is  not  possible  to  decide  the  question  of  jurisdiction 
promoted  by  such  location,  because  that  would  be  "to 
opine  previously  upon  the  main  issue."  The  Court 
then  confines  itself  to  deciding  that  the  issue  shall  be 
tried  at  Arica,  as  that  is  the  domicile  of  the  defendants. 
Thus  the  question  of  location  is  expressly  left  unde- 
cided. 

5.  The  protest  cites  the  opinion  of  the  "distinguished 
Chilean  engineer,  Sr.  Renjifo,  who  was  appointed  offi- 
cially by  the  Government  of  Your  Excellency  in  1898 
for  the  purpose  of  drawing  a  map  of  the  region  of 
Camarones." 

In  this  respect,  it  is  well  to  note  that  Sr.  Agustin 
Renjifo,  although  having  a  subordinate  position  on  the 
commission  presided  over  by  the  Navy  Captain,  Sr. 
Arturo  Wilson,  was  not  appointed  officially.  Sr.  Ren- 
jifo 's  report,  which  contains  the  opinion  that  has  been 
cited,  is  a  private  document,  written  at  the  request  of 
private  individuals  who  had  an  interest  in  the  borax 
negotiation,  and  he  never  was  invested  with  an  official 
character.  Besides,  as  I  have  demonstrated  (Official 
Bulletin  cited,  page  1536),  the  geographic  conclusions 
reached  by  Sr.  Renjifo,  as  well  as  the  map  on  which 
he  bases  such  conclusions,  are  inexact. 

6.  The  protest  ends,  stating  that:  "the  decree  which 
has  brought  about  this  protest  is  not  based  upon  the 


337 

true  titles  of  the  boundary  line  between  the  provinces 
of  Arica  and  Tarapaca." 

It  is  this  denial  that  has  led  me  to  believe  that  the 
Peruvian  protest  has  been  written  in  ignorance  of  the 
facts  that  served  as  basis  for  the  decree  of  May  4th, 
because  documents  Numbers  5,  33,  34,  and  35,  annexed 
to  the  report  of  October  1,  1903,  precisely  contain  re- 
productions of  the  colonial  boundary  line  between  the 
parishes  (now  districts)  of  Codpa  and  Camina,  recog- 
nized as  such  by  the  Chairman  of  the  Peruvian  Terri- 
torial Demarcation  Commission  in  1878.  In  the  third 
and  fourth  paragraphs  of  the  report,  the  modifications 
undergone  in  the  colonial  boundaries  during  the  period 
of  Peruvian  rule,  are  carefully  studied,  as  well  as  are 
their  permanency  during  Chilean  administration. 

Thus  refuting,  one  by  one,  the  arguments  on  which 
it  is  pretended  to  base  the  protest,  I  have  come  to  be 
persuaded,  with  great  satisfaction,  Mr.  Minister,  that 
the  boundary  line  as  set  out  by  the  decree  of  May  4th, 
can  not  be  impugned  by  Peru. 

The  fact  that  the  Foreign  Department  of  that  coun- 
try is  not  able  to  present  other  arguments  in  favor 
of  the  thesis  that  it  sustains,  than  those  that  I  have  re- 
futed so  easily,  proves  that  no  better  arguments  ex- 
ist, and  that  the  titles  of  Tarapaca,  established  by  the 
report  of  October  1,  1903,  to  the  boundary  line,  as  set 
out  by  the  decree  of  May  4th,  are  good  and  solid. 

May  God  keep  you. 

Alejandro  Bertrand. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Interior  of  Chile. 


338 

(Enclosure  to  Preceding  Note.) 

Decision  of  the  Judge  of  Pisagua  on  the  Case  of  the 
Banco  Aleman  Transatlantico  vs.  Compania  Mi- 
nera  de  Chilcaya. 

[Translation.] 

Pisagua,  June  10,  1901. 
Having  seen  and  taken  into  consideration: 

1.  That,  as  it  is  shown  by  the  accompanying  facts, 
this  same  question  of  jurisdiction  has  been  raised  in 
the  action  for  the  summary  possession  of  the  borate 
deposits,  the  replevying  of  which  is  now  being  de- 
manded, brought  by  Eujenio  Marchant  and  others  be- 
fore the  Court  at  Arica. 

2.  That  that  question  was  decided  in  favor  of  the  ju- 
dicial authority  of  that  Department,  without  detriment 
to  the  rights  that  the  defendants  may  set  forth. 

3.  That,  since  the  location  of  the  borate  deposits  of 
Chilcaya  or  Surire  is  the  fundamental  consideration  of 
the  replevin  suit,  it  is  not  possible  to  accept  or  deny 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Court  over  the  deposits,  with- 
out opining  previously  upon  the  chief  issue. 

4.  That,  therefore,  the  general  rule  of  the  domicile 
of  the  defendants  must  be  followed  on  this  occasion,  ac- 
cording to  Article  212  of  the  Law  of  October  15,  1875, 
and  that  domicile,  in  the  present  case,  is  in  the  juris- 
diction to  which  they  apply  and  in  which  they  locate 
the  domicile  of  the  concern  involved  in  this  proceed- 
ing. 

For  these  reasons  I  declare  myself  unqualified  to  try 
the  replevin  suit,  page  27,  brought  by  the  Banco  Ale- 
man  Transatlantico  (German  Transatlantic  Bank) 
against  the  Compania  Minera  de  Chilcaya  (Mining 
Company  of  Chilcaya)  and  others,  and  therefore,  these 
legal  proceedings  shall  be  sent  to  the  Court  of  Arica. 

Poblete. — 

Martinez  M.,  Secretary. 


339 

(Enclosure  to  Preceding  Note.) 

Decision  Given  by  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  Tacna,  on 
the  Case  of  the  Banco  Aleman  Transatlantic^  vs. 
Compania  Minera  de  Chilcaya. 

[Translation.] 

Tacna,  December  6,  1901. 
Whereas :  For  the  reasons  expressed  in  paragraphs 
3  and  4,  the  decision  of  Jnne  10th  last,  appealed  from, 
page  279,  is  hereby  confirmed,  with  costs.  Publish  and 
return.  Add  to  it  the  adequate  paper.  Garmendia 
Eeyes.  Barros.  Donoso  Vildosola.  Palacios.  Cis- 
ternas  Pena.  Decided  by  the  Honorable  Court. 
Martinez  R.,  Secretary. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile  to  Minister  of 
Foreign  Relations  of  Peru. 

[Translation.] 

Santiago,  August  12,  1904. 
Mr.  Minister: 

Under  date  of  July  16th  last,  Your  Excellency  sent 
to  this  Department  a  note  of  protest  with  a  view  to 
establishing  certain  reservations  with  regard  to  the 
decree  of  the  Government  of  Chile,  No.  1,786,  of  May  4, 
last,  in  which  the  demarcation  line  of  the  northern 
boundary  of  Tarapaca  is  fixed,  and  to  oppose  not  only 
the  part  containing  the  resolution  of  said  decree,  but 
also  the  considerations  which  served  as  basis  for  that 
resolution. 

Your  Excellency  states  that  although  the  reserva- 
tions formulated  by  that  Chancellery  in  the  note  ad- 
dressed to  the  Legation  of  Chile  in  Peru  on  January 


340 

15,  1900,  and  the  subsequent  declaration  that  the 
Chilean  representative  made  in  his  communication  of 
the  17th  of  the  same  month  to  the  effect  that  in  no  case 
could  the  resolution  of  his  Government  (on  the  bounda- 
ries of  the  subdelegations  of  Chilcaya  and  Surire), 
whatever  they  might  be,  affect  the  rights  conferred 
upon  Peru  by  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  they  would  suffice 
to  satisfy  these  rights  against  the  undue  scope  which 
might  be  attributed  to  the  recent  decree  of  the  Chilean 
Government,  however,  not  only  the  part  containing  the 
resolution  but  the  considerations  upon  which  said  de- 
cree has  been  based,  oblige  Your  Excellency  to  safe- 
guard the  territorial  interests  of  the  Peruvian  prov- 
ince of  Arica  (which  is  in  Chile  included  in  the  prov- 
ince of  Tacna)  which  the  Government  of  Peru  con- 
sidered effected  when  addressing  this  Chancellery, 
doing  so  in  a  direct  way  in  the  absence  of  a  Peruvian 
Legation  in  Chile  and  a  Chilean  Legation  in  Peru. 

Your  Excellency  adds  that  the  above  mentioned  reso- 
lution does  not  constitute,  in  his  opinion,  a  measure  of 
internal  administration  in  the  territories  subject  to 
the  authority  of  the  Government  of  Chile,  but  that  it 
constitutes  an  interpretation  of  the  determining  laws 
of  the  boundaries  in  question,  which  cannot  be  accepted 
by  the  Government  of  Peru. 

This  appreciation  is  founded,  according  to  the  note 
of  Your  Excellency,  in  that  the  opposed  decree,  in  its 
considerations,  affirms  that  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  does 
not  specify  in  detail  the  points  which  form  the  southern 
boundary  of  the  province  of  Tarapaca  and  the  north- 
ern boundary  of  Tacna  (including  that  of  Arica),  start- 
ing from  Arepunta,  where  meet  the  various  branches 
which  form  the  River  Camarones ;  and  in  which,  before 
the  last  part,  reference  is  made  to  a  report  and  map 
presented  by  the  Office  of  Boundaries,  according  to 


341 

which  is  determined  in  the  field  the  line  of  demarcation 
which  bounded  the  province  of  Tarapaca  on  the  north 
at  the  time  of  its  cession  to  Chile,  a  boundary  which 
was  maintained  by  the  aforementioned  Treaty  and 
laws,  and  which  is  determined  in  this  decree  by  the 
points  therein  mentioned.  Your  Excellency  begins, 
then,  to  discuss  the  correctness  of  the  line  indicated  in 
the  decree  referred  to  in  order  to  arrive  at  the  conclu- 
sion that  it  is  not  in  conformity  with  and  does  not  cor- 
respond to  the  boundary  marked  out  by  the  Peruvian 
laws  prior  to  October  20,  1883. 

From  what  has  been  explained  it  is  deduced  that 
your  Government  bases  its  protest  on  two  considera- 
tions; that  the  Government  of  Chile  has  determined 
without  the  intervention  of  Peru  the  boundary  which 
shall  separate  the  Chilean  province  of  Tarapaca  from 
the  province  of  Tacna,  occupied  by  Chile  and  subject 
to  its  administration  and  to  its  laws ;  and  that  the  line 
of  demarcation,  pointed  out  in  the  decree  of  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Chile,  is  not  in  conformity  with  the  Peru- 
vian laws  previous  to  October  20,  1883. 

As  in  the  first  point,  your  reservations  and  protests 
are  neither  justified  nor  acceptable  in  so  far  as  the 
Government  of  Chile  has  not  intended,  nor  could  it  do 
so  by  an  administrative  decree,  to  fix  by  its  own  au- 
thority the  northern  boundary  of  the  province  of  Tara- 
paca. The  boundaries  of  this  latter  province  are  those 
mentioned  in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  by  virtue  of  which 
Peru  gives  perpetually  and  unconditionally  to  Chile  the 
territory  of  the  littoral  province  of  Tarapaca;  that  is 
to  say,  all  the  territory  which,  under  Peruvian  domin- 
ion, constituted  the  province  of  Tarapaca. 

So  then,  the  necessity  of  determining  the  scope  of 
the  action  of  administrative  and  judicial  authorities, 
imposed  upon  the  Government  the  obligation  of  de- 


342 

fining  the  boundary  or  the  line  of  demarcation  which 
corresponds  to  the  expression  river  and  ravine  of 
Camarones  employed  in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon. 

This  has  been  the  object  of  the  decree  of  May  4th 
issued  by  the  Department  of  the  Interior,  which  is 
based  on  the  splendid  report  made  by  the  Chief  of  the 
Boundary  Office.  This  report  establishes  the  geo- 
graphical, traditional,  legal  and  administrative  ante- 
cedents of  the  boundary  between  Tacna  and  Arica  and 
the  line  of  demarcation  between  Arepunta  and  the 
Bolivian  frontier,  which  corresponds  to  the  situation 
existing  in  that  territory  at  the  time  of  the  cession  of 
Tarapaca  to  Chile. 

Even  though  the  study  made  by  the  Boundary 
Bureau  and  the  data  collected  with  respect  to  the 
northern  boundary  of  the  province  of  Tarapaca  might 
serve,  if  necessity  arose,  as  authorized  and  important 
antecedents  for  deciding  the  territorial  rights  of  Chile 
and  Peru,  the  decree  contradicted  by  you,  does  not  have 
the  scope  of  fixing,  changing  or  defining  an  interna- 
tional boundary,  since,  while  the  province  of  Tacna  is 
under  the  power  of  Chile,  any  discussion  or  resolution 
concerning  the  matter  would  be  inopportune  and  un- 
necessary. 

This  declaration  is  in  agreement  with  the  answer 
given  by  the  undersigned  in  his  note  of  January  19, 
1901,  to  the  observations  formulated  at  that  time  by 
the  representative  of  Peru  in  Santiago  on  this  same 
question,  by  reason  of  the  steps  taken  then  by  that 
Government  to  define  or  to  make  precise  the  boun- 
daries of  the  departments  of  Arica  and  Pisagua. 

This  communication  read  as  follows: 

"The  undersigned  is  not  ignorant  of  the  fact 
that  if  it  were  a  question  of  defining  the  boundary 
between  the  Chilean  territory  of  Tarapaca  and 


343 

the  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  with  the  object 
of  determining  the  extent  of  the  sovereignty  of 
Chile,  the  case  would  arise  of  granting  intervention 
to  all  the  Governments  interested  in  the  fixing 
of  the  boundary. 

"But,  since  the  measures  adopted  by  this  Gov- 
ernment are  intended  only  to  solve  difficulties  of 
internal  order  in  connection  with  the  competence 
or  incompetence  of  the  authorities  to  know  the 
matters  which  are  under  their  jurisdiction,  and 
these  measures  still  being  claimed  by  the  private 
individuals'  who  wish  to  render  their  rights  valid 
in  a  legal  way,  there  would  be  no  reason  to  attrib- 
ute to  the  resolution  adopted  by  the  Department 
of  the  Interior  any  other  scope  or  meaning  than 
that  of  an  administrative  measure  destined  to 
satisfy  necessities  of  good  public  service  in  the 
departments  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

"Neither  could  it  be  supposed  that  the  defini- 
tion of  the  boundary  which  separates  the  two  de- 
partments of  the  Republic,  by  means  of  a  supreme 
decree,  amounts  to  an  extraordinary  measure  out- 
side our  legal  regime. 

"The  aforementioned  decrees  on  this  same  sub- 
ject are  proof  of  this  fact. 

"The  Treaty  of  Ancon  is  a  law  of  the  Repub- 
lic of  Chile.  Therein  are  fixed  the  boundaries  of 
the  provinces  of  Tarapaca,  and  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  subject  to  Chilean  legislation. 

"All  measures  intended  to  determine  the  scope 
of  action  of  the  authorities,  to  solve  difficulties  or 
conflicts  arising  in  the  internal  or  administrative 
order,  are  to  be  decided  exclusively  by  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Chile  which  has  in  Tacna  and  Arica 
the  same  powers  which,  according  to  the  legisla- 
tion of  the  country,  it  exercises  in  the  rest  of  the 
Republic. 

"Tt  not  being  a  question  of  settling  a  contro- 
versy relative  to  boundaries  with  the  Government 
of  Peru,  which  has  not  arisen,  but  of  settling, 


344 

within  the  powers  of  the  Government,  conflicts 
which  have  arisen,  in  the  internal  or  administra- 
tive order,  the  undersigned  does  not  believe  that 
there  is  cause  to  attribute  an  international  char- 
acter to  this  matter." 

The  considerations  above  stated  and  which  refer  to 
preparatory  measures  of  the  resolution  which  this 
Government  has  recently  issued,  are  wholly  appli- 
cable to  the  resolution  itself,  that  is,  to  the  decree 
which  the  Government  of  Your  Excellency  has  op- 
posed. 

The  undersigned,  therefore,  has  nothing  more  to  add 
to  justify  the  measure  adopted  and  to  establish  its  ob- 
ject and  its  true  scope. 

With  regard  to  the  reasons  which  Your  Excellency 
sets  forth  for  considering  that  the  line  of  demarcation 
fixed  in  the  decree  of  May  4th  is  not  in  conformity 
with  the  Peruvian  laws  prior  to  October  20,  1883,  and 
which  "segregates  a  section  of  the  province  of  Arica, 
which  belongs  to  it,  in  order  to  incorporate  it  to  that 
of  Tarapaca,"  I  shall  not  follow  Your  Excellency  into 
a  discussion  which  is  not  opportune  nor  has  any  object, 
but  I  shall  refer  to  the  report  of  the  Chief  of  the 
Office  of  Boundaries  which  served  as  basis  for  said  de- 
cree and  which  probably  Your  Excellency  did  not  have 
at  hand  when  addressing  your  communication  of  pro- 
test of  July  16th,  and  to  the  report  of  the  same  official 
in  which  are  rectified  the  errors  contained  in  this  part 
of  the  observations  of  Your  Excellency. 

I  enclose  herewith,  to  that  effect,  a  printed  copy  of 
the  first  of  those  reports  and  a  copy  of  the  second. 

With  the  above  statements,  I  make  answer  to  the 
note  of  Your  Excellency  and  prove  ineffective  the 
scope  of  protest  against  the  proceedings  that  this  Gov- 


345 

ernment  has  adopted  within  its  right  and  the  respect 
of  the  stipulations  which  bind  it  with  the  Government 
of  Peru. 

I  take  pleasure  in  offering  to  Your  Excellency  the 
assurances  of  my  highest  and  sincerest  consideration. 

Emilio  Bello. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru. 


Declaratory  Act  Signed  by  Minister  of  Foreign  Rela- 
tions of  Chile,  and  Minister  of  Bolivia  to  Chile. 

[Translation.] 

November  15,  1904. 

In  Santiago  on  November  15,  1904,  met  in  the  Min- 
istry of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile  the  Minister  of 
the  Department,  Don  Luis  A.  Vergara,  and  the  Envoy 
Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Bo- 
livia, Don  Alberto  Gutierrez,  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Relations  stated: 

That  inasmuch  as  Article  II  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace 
and  Amity  signed  October  20th  last,  refers  to  the 
territories  occupied  by  Chile  in  virtue  of  Article  2  of 
the  Truce  Agreement  of  April  4,  1884 — that  is,  to 
those  included  between  the  River  Loa  on  the  north  and 
parallel  23  on  the  south — and  inasmuch  as  the  at- 
titude which  Chile  has  always  taken  with  reference 
to  the  territory  between  parallels  23  and  24  south 
latitude  has  been  objected  to  by  the  Government  of 
Bolivia  on  various  occasions,  he  considers  it  expedient 
to  have  it  clearly  understood  that  the  Government  of 
Bolivia  recognizes   the   absolute  and  perpetual   sov- 


346 

ereignty  of  Chile  in  these  last-named  territories,  from 
the  sea  to  the  present  boundary  with  the  Argentine 
Republic.  He  added,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that 
it  is  to  be  understood  from  the  spirit  of  said  Treaty 
that  in  view  of  the  circumstances  which  gave  rise 
to  it,  the  Government  of  Chile  reserves  full  liberty 
to  examine  into,  pass  judgment  upon,  and  liquidate 
the  debts  enumerated  in  Article  V,  as  likewise  that, 
outside  of  these  obligations,  the  Government  of  Chile 
takes  no  responsibility  for  any  other  debt  of  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Bolivia,  whatever  its  nature  and  origin. 
He  deemed  it  advisable  to  have  it  on  record  that  this 
was  the  scope  and  meaning  of  the  referred  to 
Article  V. 

The  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipo- 
tentiary of  Bolivia  replied  that,  duly  authorized  by 
his  Government,  he  had  no  objection  to  making  the 
declaration  asked  for  by  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Re- 
lations, viz.,  that  the  Government  of  Bolivia  recog- 
nizes the  absolute  and  perpetual  sovereignty  of  Chile 
in  the  territory  situated  between  parallels  23  and  24 
south  latitude  from  the  sea  to  the  present  boundary 
of  the  Argentine  Republic.  He  also  accepts  the  in- 
terpretation which  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations 
gives  to  Article  V,  and  declares,  therefore,  that  the 
Government  of  Chile  shall  have  complete  liberty  to 
examine  into,  pass  judgment  upon,  and  liquidate  said 
debts;  that  beyond  these  obligations  it  takes  the  re- 
sponsibility of  no  other  debt  of  the  Government  of 
Bolivia,  whatever  its  nature  and  origin,  and  that  this 
last-named  Government  will  furnish  to  the  Govern- 
ment of  Chile  all  the  data  at  its  disposal  with  re- 
ference to  said  debts. 

Finally,  Senor  Gutierrez  stated  that  for  his  part 
he  would  like  to  have  it  put  on  record  in  this  con- 


347 

f erence  that  the  minimum  rebate  of  10  per  cent  granted 
the  national  and  manufactured  products  of  Chile  re- 
ferred to  in  the  Protocol  signed  in  this  city  October 
20th  last,  should  be  maintained  as  an  obligation  only 
for  the  time  during  which  the  counter-guarantee  to 
be  given  by  Chile  in  conformity  with  Article  III  of 
the  Treaty  of  Peace  and  Amity  remains  in  force. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  stated  that  this 
limitation  exists  in  the  preliminaries  of  the  Treaty 
of  Peace  and  that  he  had  no  objections  to  accepting 
it  in  the  terms  indicated  by  the  Minister  of  Bolivia. 

For  the  purposes  of  record  they  agreed  to  protoco- 
lize  this  Conference,  signing  and  sealing  this  minute 
in  duplicate. 

Luis  A.  Vergara. 

A.  Gutierrez. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  to  Minister  of 
Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 

[Translation.] 

Ministry  of  Foreign  Relations, 

Lima,  February  18, 1905. 
Mr.  Minister  : 

In  the  second  Clause  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  and 
Amity  that  has  just  been  concluded  between  the  Re- 
publics of  Chile  and  Bolivia  is  given  a  complete  demar- 
cation of  boundaries,  in  which  is  comprised  in  a  direc- 
tion from  south  to  north,  that  of  the  territories  of  the 
provinces  of  Arica  and  Tacna,  and  a  part  also  of  that 
of  Tarata. 

In  the  third  Clause,  it  is  likewise  agreed  to  connect 
the  port  of  Arica  with  the  Alto  de  la  Paz  by  a  railway, 
for  the  construction  of  which  the  Government  of  Chile 


348 

will  contract  at  its  expense,  within  the  period  of  a  year 
reckoned  from  the  ratification  of  the  Treaty;  it  being 
further  stipulated  that  the  execution  of  the  enterprise 
and  its  exploitation,  as  well  as  commercial  traffic 
through  the  port  of  Arica,  shall  be  determined  by  spe- 
cial agreements,  concessions  and  engagements^  accord- 
ing to  the  aforementioned  Article  III  and  to  Articles 
VII,  X  and  XI. 

These  covenants  compel  my  Government  to  address 
to  Your  Excellency  the  present  note,  the  object  of 
which  is  to  make  express  protest  and  reservation  of 
the  rights  of  Peru,  in  respect  of  these  stipulations. 

By  the  Treaty  of  Peace  concluded  at  Ancon,  October 
20,  1883,  Peru  ceded  to  Chile  the  perpetual  ownership 
of  the  territories  of  the  province  of  Tarapaca,  and  the 
possession  of  those  of  Tacna  and  Arica  for  the  period 
of  ten  years,  reckoned  from  the  exchange  of  ratifica- 
tions of  the  Treaty,  which  took  place  on  March  28, 1884. 

It  was  stipulated  that: 

"after  the  expiration  of  this  period,  a  plebiscite 
will  decide  by  popular  vote,  whether  the  territory 
of  the  aforementioned  provinces  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  shall  remain  definitively  under  the  dominion 
and  sovereignty  of  Chile,  or  whether  it  shall  con- 
tinue to  be  a  part  of  the  Peruvian  territory. 

Whichsoever  of  the  two  countries  to  which  the 
provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica  shall  become  an- 
nexed will  pay  to  the  other  ten  million  pesos,  in 
Chilean  silver  coin  or  in  Peruvian  soles  of  an 
equal  standard  and  weight  as  the  foregoing. ' ' 

This  engagement  is  an  essential  part  of  the  Treaty 
of  Peace,  so  much  so  that  it  was  expressly  stipulated 
that  even  the  protocol  that  would  determine  the  form 
of  the  plebiscite  and  the  conditions  and  time  for  the 


349 

payment  of  the  ten  millions  by  the  country  that  should 
remain  in  possession  of  Tacna  and  Arica  "will  be  con- 
sidered an  integral  part  of  the  Treaty. ' ' 

By  this  Treaty,  therefore,  Peru  ceded  to  Chile  the 
absolute  ownership  of  the  territories  of  the  province 
of  Tarapaca  and  mere  possession  of  Tacna  and  Arica, 
the  dominion  over  which  had  not  been  renounced  by 
Peru,  but  their  definitive  position  was  submitted  to  the 
plebiscite,  which,  it  was  stipulated,  ought  to  be  held 
ten  years  from  the  ratification  of  said  Treaty,  that  is, 
on  March  28,  1914. 

In  order  completely  to  safeguard  the  rights  of  Peru 
from  every  stipulation  by  which  they  may  be  affected 
by  the  Treaty  of  Peace  between  Chile  and  Bolivia,  it  is 
sufficient  to  consider  that  in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  of 
1883,  one  of  the  contracting  parties  was  the  same  Re- 
public of  Chile;  and  that  the  Republic  of  Bolivia,  be- 
sides having  had  an  exceptional  knowledge  of  and  in- 
terest in  those  acts,  has  always  recognized  the  rights 
of  Peru  over  the  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  it 
being  very  proper  to  recall  and  very  just  to  emphasize 
the  fact  that,  in  the  recent  Treaty  for  the  Delimitation 
of  Frontiers  and  of  Arbitration,  which  she  concluded 
with  Peru  on  September  23,  1902,  and  which  was  rati- 
fied on  January  30  of  last  year,  the  following  was 
stipulated  in  the  second  Clause: 

"The  high  contracting  parties  further  agree  to 
proceed,  in  conformity  with  the  stipulations  of  the 
present  Treaty,  to  the  demarcation  of  the  line  that 
separates  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica  from 
the  Bolivian  province  of  Carangas,  immediately 
after  they  shall  again  be  under  the  sovereignty  of 
Peru." 

These  being  the  facts  and  the  condition  established 
by  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  in  respect  of  the  territories  of 


350 

the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  they  may  not  be 
modified  or  affected  by  treaties  or  stipulations  in  which 
Peru  has  not  participated;  but  my  Government  con- 
siders that  its  imperative  duty,  in  representation  and 
defense  of  the  national  interests,  compels  it  to  make  a 
new  avowal  of  its  imperishable  rights,  on  the  ground 
of  the  aforementioned  stipulations  of  the  Treaty  of 
Peace  concluded  by  Your  Excellency's  Government 
with  that  of  Bolivia. 

Demarcation  of  frontiers,  railway  works  and  ex- 
ploitation, conditions  of  free  commercial  traffic,  obli- 
gations and  concessions  that  may  affect  the  territories 
and  their  seigniorial  rights,  are  acts  of  dominion  in  ex- 
ercise of  the  full  and  absolute  disposal  of  property  and 
sovereignty,  which  belong,  by  indisputable  interna- 
tional and  civil  law,  only  to  the  lord  and  owner,  and 
not  to  the  possessor  or  mere  occupant,  which  is  the 
position  of  Chile  in  the  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

For  the  purpose  in  view,  it  was  necessary  that  these 
arrangements  should  have  been  made  in  concurrence 
with  Peru,  or  that  the  plebiscite  to  which  they  were 
subject  by  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  should  have  decided  in 
favor  of  Chile. 

Neither  the  one  thing  nor  the  other  has  been  done, 
so  that  my  Government  is  compelled  to  declare  that 
Peru  does  not  accept  or  recognize  these  arrangements 
to  which  she  has  not  been  a  party;  that  they  are  not 
binding  on  her  therefore,  in  any  manner  or  at  any  time, 
and,  furthermore,  that  they  may  not  modify  the  legal 
position  of  the  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  in  re- 
spect of  which  Peru  continues  to  be  lord  of  the  domain, 
and  Chile,  a  mere  occupant  and  holder,  whose  legal 
title  expired  ten  years  ago,  when  the  plebiscite  to  which 
the  Treaty  of  Ancon  refers  ought  to  have  been  effected. 

My  Government  would  not  have,  of  course,  to  make 


351 

these  declarations  and  reservations,  if  said  provinces 
were  not  in  an  irregular  and  anomalous  position,  which 
can  not  possibly  continue  to  exist. 

The  period  stipulated  in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  for 
the  determination,  by  a  plebiscite,  of  the  definitive  fate 
of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica  expired,  in  truth, 
on  March  28,  1894;  and,  nevertheless,  this  plebiscite 
has  not  been  held,  although  the  protocol  for  its  execu- 
tion, which  was  an  integral  part  of  the  Treaty  of  1883, 
was  concluded  on  April  16,  1898. 

When  that  protocol  was  approved  by  the  two  Gov- 
ernments and  by  the  Congress  of  Peru  and  the  Senate 
of  Chile,  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  of  Chile,  without  ex- 
pressing itself  as  to  the  Treaty,  voted  that  the  points 
that  ought  to  be  settled  by  arbitration  should  be 
agreed  on  directly  between  the  two  Governments,  in 
order  to  carry  into  effect  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of 
Ancon,  with  a  view  to  which  it  instructed  Your  Ex- 
cellency's Government  to  take  the  respective  steps, 
which  have  not  been  taken  hitherto. 

The  question  of  Tacna  and  Arica  is  not  an  unsolved 
problem  regarding  which  the  two  countries  may  freely 
contract,  as  they  may  deem  most  in  harmony  with  their 
interests.  It  is  an  international  affair,  governed  by  a 
treaty,  binding  on  the  two  nations  that  concluded  it 
and  that  both  sealed  with  their  public  faith.  Every 
reason  of  expediency  that  might  be  contemplated  is 
overborne  by  the  rigid  precepts  of  justice  and  an  im- 
perative respect  for  contracted  treaties,  which  may  not 
possibly  be  violated  without  committing  the  gravest 
offense  against  law,  civilization  and  the  respectability 
of  nations. 

The  stipulations  contained  by  the  Treaty  of  Peace 
between  Chile  and  Bolivia  relative  to  the  provinces  of 
Tacna  and  Arica  render  it  even  more  urgent  that  steps 


352 

be  taken  to  the  immediate  execution  of  the  plebiscite 
provided  for  in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon;  for  it  is  incon- 
sistent that  this  Treaty  should  not  have  been  carried 
into  effect,  and,  nevertheless,  that  one  of  the  parties 
should  enter,  with  a  third  party,  into  treaties  that  are 
necessarily  subject  to  the  definitive  position  of  those 
territories,  which  ought  to  be  decided  by  the  plebiscite 
provided- for  in  said  Treaty  of  Peace  on  October  23, 
1883. 

Your  Excellency  knows  quite  well  with  what  a  per- 
severing, honorable  and  solicitous  purpose  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Peru,  has  on  its  part,  endeavored  to  have 
the  plebiscite  effected  in  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and 
Arica,  as  it  has  never  been  attributable  to  my  Govern- 
ment that  this  design  has  not  been  accomplished;  a 
consummation  that  is  imperatively  demanded  by  the 
sense  of  justice  and  the  higher  interests  of  the  two 
countries,  pledged  by  their  national  honor  to  the  ful- 
fillment of  said  Treaty. 

In  the  meantime  there  has  arisen  in  that  province 
a  unique  international  situation,  for  there  are  no  pre- 
cedents, in  the  history  of  political  relations  between 
nations,  of  a  territory  subject  to  a  plebiscite,  by  a  pub- 
lic and  binding  treaty  between  two  countries,  which 
remains,  nevertheless,  de  facto,  in  the  power  of  one  of 
them,  after  the  expiration  of  the  period  that  was  set 
for  the  expression  of  the  popular  will  that  was  to  de- 
cide their  definitive  fate. 

This  anomalous  and  singular  situation  is  contrary  to 
the  Treaty  of  Ancon;  and,  after  the  expiration  of  the 
ten  years  of  precarious  possession  of  the  territories  of 
Tacna  and  Arica,  which  this  Treaty  awarded  to  Chile, 
it  prevents  the  latter  from  modifying,  in  any  manner 
whatsoever,  the  situation  of  those  territories  and  from 
contracting  public  obligations  and  engagements  that 


353 

may  affect  them,  she  still  being  deprived  of  the  posses- 
sory status,  which,  in  the  sight  of  the  law,  does  not 
exist,  when  there  is  no  legal  title  that  upholds  it. 

I  must  protest,  in  like  manner,  that  the  demarcation 
of  frontiers  contained  in  the  Treaty  of  Peace  between 
Chile  and  Bolivia  includes  a  part  of  the  territory  of 
the  province  of  Tarata,  which  Chile  unwarrantably  oc- 
cupied and  continues  to  retain. 

When  the  stipulations  were  made,  in  the  Treaty  of 
Ancon,  in  respect  of  the  province  of  Tacna,  the  terri- 
tories which,  according  to  their  political  and  geo- 
graphical delimitation  constituted  the  province  of  Tar- 
ata,— to  which  that  Treaty  did  not  refer  in  any  manner 
whatsoever, — could  not  have  been  included  to  that 
province. 

Those  territories  were  not  comprised,  in  any  con- 
tingency, within  the  line  established  by  the  source  of 
the  Sama  River  which  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  indicates 
as  the  northern  boundary  of  the  province  of  Tacna, 
from  its  rise  in  the  Cordilleras  that  form  the  boundary 
with  Bolivia  to  its  discharge  into  the  ocean,  for  the 
true  source  of  this  river  is  indisputable,  as  has  been, 
set  forth  by  the  Government  of  Peru  in  the  constant 
demands  it  has  formulated  to  that  of  Your  Excellency 
regarding  this  point. 

The  undersigned  doubts  not  that  the  rectitude  of 
Your  Excellency  and  Your  Excellency's  Government 
must  recognize  these  facts  and  must  agree  with  my 
Government  that  the  stipulations  of  the  Treaty  of 
Peace  and  Amity  concluded  between  the  Eepublics  of 
Chile  and  Bolivia  may  not  modify  the  situation  of  the 
territories  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  sub- 
ject to  the  Treaty  of  Ancon ;  and  he  holds,  besides,  that 
whatsoever  be  the  agreements  reached  regarding  them, 
they  may  not  at  any  time  or  in  any  manner,  be  binding 


354 

on  Peru,  inasmuch  as  she  has  not  been  a  party  to  such 
agreements;  just  as,  in  like  manner,  they  may  not 
affect  her  territorial  rights  over  ■  the  provinces  of 
Tacna,  Arica  and  Tarata. 

Be  pleased,  Mr.  Minister,  to  receive  the  assurances 
of  my  highest  and  most  distinguished  consideration. 

J.  Pkado  y  Ugarteche. 

To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile  to  Minister  of 
Foreign  Relations  of  Peru. 

[Translation.] 

Ministry  of  Foreign  Belations, 

Santiago,  March  15,  1905. 
Mr.  Minister: 

This  Ministry  has  received  Your  Excellency's  com- 
munication, dated  February  18  just  past,  in  which 
Your  Excellency  sets  forth  that  he  made  "express 
protest  and  reservation  of  the  rights  of  Peru"  because 
of  the  stipulations  contained  in  the  second  and  third 
Clauses  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  and  Amity  of  October 
20,  1904,  the  first  of  which  refers  to  the  demarcation 
of  frontiers  between  Chile  and  Bolivia ;  and  the  second, 
to  the  construction  of  a  railway  that  will  connect  the 
port  of  Arica  with  the  Alto  de  la  Paz. 

Your  Excellency  bases  his  protest  on  the  fact  that, 
by  the  Treaty  of  Ancon, 

"Peru  ceded  to  Chile  the  absolute  ownership  of 
the  territories  of  the  province  of  Tarapaca  and 
mere  possession  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  the  dominion 


355 

over  which  had  not  been  renounced  by  Peru,  but 
their  definitive  position  was  subject  to  the  plebi- 
scite, which,  it  was  stipulated,  ought  to  be  held  ten 
years  from  the  ratification  of  said  Treaty,  that  is, 
on  March  28,  1894." 

Your  Excellency  adds  that, 

"demarcation  of  frontiers,  railway  works  and  ex- 
ploitation, conditions  of  free  commercial  traffic, 
obligations  and  concessions  that  may  affect  the 
territories  and  their  seigniorial  rights,  are  acts  of 
dominion  in  exercise  of  the  full  and  absolute  dis- 
posal of  property  and  sovereignty,  which  belong, 
by  indisputable  international  and  civil  law,  only 
to  the  lord  and  owner,  and  not  to  the  possessor  or 
mere  occupant,  which  is  the  position  of  Chile  in 
the  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica. ' ' 

This  is  not  the  first  time  that  the  Government  of 
Peru  has  deemed  it  necessary  to  protest  regarding 
political  and  administrative  measures  adopted  by  the 
Government  of  Chile  in  the  territories  of  Tacna  and 
Arica;  and  since,  on  the  one  hand,  Your  Excellency's 
note  is  based  on  considerations  similar  to  those  that 
are  adduced  in  the  protests  mentioned,  and  since,  on 
the  other,  Your  Excellency  is  careful  to  express  that 
his  principal  object  is  to  make  it  clear  that  the  Treaty 
of  Peace  and  Amity  to  which  Your  Excellency  refers 
is  binding  only  on  the  Republics  of  Chile  and  Bolivia, 
and  not  on  the  Republic  of  Peru — a  fact,  this  latter, 
that  my  Government  has  never  placed  in  doubt — I 
might,  indeed,  limit  myself  to  reproducing  the  replies 
that  this  Ministry  has  given  opportunely  to  the  Peru- 
vian Chancellery. 

Nevertheless,  in  view  of  the  good  disposition  that 
exists  in  my  country,  to  cultivate  friendly  relations 


356 

with  Your  Excellency's,  I  am  pleased  to  take  on  myself 
the  duty  of  making  it  clear  that  the  acts  against  which 
Your  Excellency  protests  not  only  are  not  contrary 
to  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  but  that,  in  agreeing  to  their 
accomplishment,  the  Government  of  Chile  has  pro- 
ceeded in  the  exercise  of  the  indisputable  rights  that 
were  accorded  by  that  Treaty. 

Your  Excellency  maintains  that  the  Treaty  of  Ancon 
reserves  to  Peru  the  dominion  of  Tacna  and  Arica  and 
that  she  only  conferred  on  Chile  a  mere  precarious  oc- 
cupation; and,  referring  then  to  the  rules  of  interna- 
tional and  civil  law,  Your  Excellency  adds  that  Chile 
may  not  accomplish  in  these  territories  any  act  of 
dominion  or  sovereignty  without  the  acquiescence  of 
Peru.  It  is  not  difficult  to  demonstrate  that  this  inter- 
terpretation  is  not  in  accord  either^with  the  letter  or 
the  spirit  of  the  Treaty  mentioned. 

In  truth,  Your  Excellency  is  not  unaware  that  a  por- 
tion of  territory  belongs  to  the  State  ,which,  with  ade- 
quate title,  is  empowered  to  occupy  it  and  subject  it  to 
its  authorities  and  laws;  and,  as  the  third  Article  of 
said  Treaty  provides  that  the  territory  of  the  prov- 
inces of  Tacna  and  Arica  "will  continue  to  be  pos- 
sessed by  Chile  and  subject  to  Chilean  legislation  and 
authorities/ '  it  is  evident  that  Peru  ceded  to  Chile  the 
free  and  absolute  sovereignty  over  these  provinces, 
without  any  limitation  as  to  their  exercise,  and  limited 
only  in  respect  of  their  duration  by  the  event  that  a 
plebiscite — which  ought  to  be  called  after  the  passage 
of  ten  years,  reckoned  from  the  ratification  of  that 
Treaty — should  so  declare. 

The  period  of  ten  years  set  by  the  Treaty  of  Ancon 
had  no  other  object  than  to  insure  to  Chile  a  minimum 
of  time  in  the  exercise  of  sovereignty;  but  it  signi- 
fies in  nowise  that  during  it  there  ought  necessarily  to 


357 

be  an  appeal  to  the  popular  deliberation.  This  point 
has  been  considered  in  previous  communications  that 
are  in  the  possession  of  the  Peruvian  Chancellery. 
Those  communications  also  prove  that  the  delay  in  the 
convocation  of  the  plebiscite  may  not  be  attributed  to 
Chile. 

" After  the  expiration  of  this  period,"  Article  III 
adds,  "a  plebiscite  will  decide,  by  popular  vote, 
whether  the  territory  of  the  aforementioned  provinces 
of  Tacna  and  Arica  shall  remain  definitively  under  the 
dominion  and  sovereignty  of  Chile,  or  whether  it  shall 
continue  to  be  a  part  of  the  Peruvian  territory. ' ' 

In  order  that  this  territory  may  remain  definitively 
under  the  dominion  and  sovereignty  of  Chile,  this 
country  must  have  exercised  and  must  continue  to  ex- 
ercise these  rights  temporarily.  The  word  * '  continue, ' ' 
which  Your  Excellency  underscores  in  his  communi- 
cation, does  not  refer  to  the  situation  prior  to  the 
Treaty,  but  to  the  one  that  may  occur  after  the  plebi- 
scite shall  have  been  convoked,  since,  otherwise,  there 
would  exist  a  contradiction  in  the  terms  of  Article  III, 
of  which  those  that  drafted  it  could  not  have  been 
guilty. 

The  rights  of  Chile  and  of  Peru,  in  respect  of  the 
provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arioa,  as  they  are  defined  in  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon,  are  therefore  quite  different:  the 
right  of  Chile  is  present  and  complete,  but,  not  defini- 
tive ;  the  right  of  Peru  is  merely  eventual. 

The  scope  that  my  Government  attaches  to  Article 
III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  has  in  its  support  not  only 
the  explicit  terms  of  that  Treaty,  but  also  the  recent 
declarations  that  Your  Excellency's  Government  has 
made  to  a  friendly  state. 

In  Article  II  of  the  Treaty  of  Demarcation  of  Fron- 
tiers concluded  between  Peru  and  Bolivia  on  Septem- 


358 

ber  23,  1902,  ratified  on  January  30,  1904,  which  Your 
Excellency  so  opportunely  transcribes  in  the  note  to 
which  I  am  replying  runs  thus : 

' '  The  high  contracting  parties  agree  to  proceed, 
in  conformity  with  the  stipulations  of  the  present 
Treaty,  to  the  demarcation  of  the  line  that  sepa- 
rates the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica  from  the 
Bolivian  province  of  Carangas,  immediately  after 
they  shall  again  be  under  the  sovereignty  of  Peru." 

Your  Excellency's  Government  therefore  recognizes, 
expressly,  in  this  Treaty  that  the  provinces  of  Tacna 
and  Arica  are  not  at  present  under  the  sovereignty  of 
Peru,  which  is  the  same  as  recognizing,  in  an  explicit 
manner,  that  the  latter  is  exercised  by  Chile;  and  if 
consideration  be  given  to  the  body  of  rights  that  terri- 
torial sovereignty  carries  with  it,  Your  Excellency  will 
understand  that  the  protest  he  formulates  is  not  in  ac- 
cord with  a  recognition  as  categorical  as  it  is  spon- 
taneous. 

It  is  true  that  Your  Excellency  maintains  in  several 
parts  of  his  communication  that  Peru  has  retained  do- 
minion over  those  territories,  that  she  "continues  to 
be  lord  of  the  domain"  in  them.  However,  Your 
Excellency  is  not  unaware,  doubtless,  that  the  tradi- 
tional doctrine  of  dominion  or  ownership  that  a  state 
exercises  over  the  territory  subject  to  its  jurisdiction 
tends  to  disappear  absolutely  from  modern  interna- 
tional law,  and  that  it  only  applies,  without  contradic- 
tion, in  civil  law,  which  does  not  govern  relations  be- 
tween states.  On  the  other  hand,  even  in  that  doctrine, 
it  is  well  known, 

"that  dominion  throughout  the  whole  extent  of 
its  possessions  pertains  exclusively  to  territorial 


359 

sovereignty  and  that  only  from  this  point  of  view 
and  considering  the  international  position  of  a 
state  alone,  may  it  be  said  that  it  is  the  proprietor 
of  its  territory. ' ' 

The  convention  concluded  between  Peru  and  Bolivia 
demonstrates,  besides,  that  the  latter  Republic  has 
taken  into  consideration  the  international  position  of 
Tacna  and  Arica  in  making  two  treaties  relative  to  the 
demarcation  of  her  frontiers :  one  of  them  with  Chile, 
the  country  that  at  present  exercises  sovereignty  and 
dominion  in  those  territories ;  and  the  other  with  Peru, 
which  has  only  a  mere  expectation  of  exercising  them. 
In  the  Treaty  concluded  with  Chile,  is  stipulated  the 
boundary  that  the  two  countries  have  fixed  between 
themselves  in  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica ;  in  the 
one  concluded  with  Peru,  it  is  declared  that  the  two 
countries  shall  fix  that  boundary  by  common  consent, 
in  case  these  provinces  return  to  the  sovereignty  of 
Peru.  The  expectations  of  Peru  are,  therefore,  care- 
fully considered  in  the  two  Treaties. 

Your  Excellency  has  also  deemed  it  opportune  to 
call  the  attention  of  this  Government  to  the  fact  that, 

"  there  are  no  precedents  in  the  history  of  politi- 
cal relations  between  nations,  of  a  territory  sub- 
ject to  a  plebiscite,  by  a  public  and  binding  treaty 
between  two  countries,  which  remains,  neverthe- 
less, de  facto,  in  the  power  of  one  of  them,  after 
the  expiration  of  the  period  that  was  set  for  the 
expression  of  the  popular  will  that  was  to  decide 
their  definitive  fate." 

It  is  almost  superfluous  to  explain  to  Your  Excel- 
lency that  the  precedents  he  invokes  in  the  paragraph 
transcribed  can  not  exist,  because  all  the  international 
plebiscites  that  have  been  effected  during  the  last  two 


360 

centuries  have  been  but  a  devised  means  or  one  for 
sanctioning  an  annexation  already  made,  such  as  those 
that  took  place  in  the  period  of  the  French  Kevolution, 
or  to  soften  an  annexation  or  a  cession  agreed  on  be- 
forehand, such  as  those  that  took  place  in  the  nine- 
teenth century.  The  result,  as  a  natural  consequence, 
was  always  favorable  to  the  annexing  country,  which 
never  beheld  in  them  a  questioning  of  her  rights,  but 
only  a  mere  formality. 

It  is  not  out  of  place  to  remind  Your  Excellency  that 
the  Treaty  of  Prague  of  August  23, 1866,  concluded  be- 
tween Prussia  and  Austria,  stipulated  the  plebiscite 
in  favor  of  the  Danish  population  of  Schleswig,  occu- 
pied by  Prussia ;  but  that  stipulation  was  rendered  in- 
effective by  a  later  convention,  because  the  Austrian 
Government,  viewing  events,  not  as  it  and  the  Danish 
population  desired,  but  in  conformity  with  the  reality 
of  things,  recognized  the  annexation  of  that  portion  of 
territory  to  Prussia  as  an  accomplished  fact. 

The  conclusion  clearly  to  be  drawn  from  diplomatic 
precedents  as  to  plebiscites  is  that  their  stipulation 
has  never  had  any  other  object  than  that  of  arriving, 
in  a  manner  regardful  of  national  feeling,  at  a  cession 
or  annexation  of  territory. 

Your  Excellency  is  not  unaware,  besides,  that  modern 
diplomacy  has  devised  other  procedures  to  cloak  terri- 
torial cessions  or  annexations.  It  would  be  impossible 
to  enter  into  an  analysis  of  these  procedures  or  to  re- 
view the  numerous  cases  in  which  they  have  been  ap- 
plied, within  the  limits  to  which  this  reply  must  be 
confined. 

Nevertheless,  it  is  not  out  of  place  to  recall  that, 
although  apparently  some  of  them  have  been  limited 
to  the  simple  occupation  and  administration  of  terri- 
tory, it  has  been  considered  that  they  have  been  tanta- 


361 

mount,  de  facto,  to  a  cession  that  has  entitled  the  occu- 
pying state  to  exercise  in  the  occupied  one  the  rights 
inherent  to  dominion  and  sovereignty. 

I  do  not  attempt,  of  course,  to  compare  these  cases 
to  the  situation  that  exists  in  the  territory  of  Tacna 
and  Arica,  in  respect  of  which  there  is  a  treaty  that 
expressly  confers  on  Chile  a  sovereignty  that  is  full 
and  absolute  in  respect  of  its  exercise  and  is  only 
limited  by  the  outcome  of  a  condition. 

These  facts  and  antecedents  will  justify  the  declara- 
tion that  I  make  to  Your  Excellency,  that  the  Govern- 
ment of  Chile  does  not  admit  that  that  of  Peru  should 
disregard  the  unquestionable  right  it  possesses  to  exer- 
cise acts  of  dominion  and  sovereignty  in  the  provinces 
of  Tacna  and  Arica  and  to  consider  them  as  an  integral 
part  of  Chilean  territory,  until  a  plebiscite — which  it 
has  been  impossible  to  call  hitherto,  because  of  circum- 
stances that  this  Chancellery  has  already  had  occasion 
to  analyze  and  explain  to  Your  Excellency's  Govern- 
ment— shall  decide  whether  the  provinces  mentioned 
shall  be  reincorporated  or  not  with  the  territory  of 
Peru.  Chile  can  now  fulfill,  and  she  will  fulfill  even 
more  than  in  the  past,  the  duty  of  giving  to  those  prow 
inces  the  greatest  sum  of  material  and  moral  welfare, 
and  of  applying  to  them  all  the  measures  of  order  and 
progress  that  may  be  necessary  to  strengthen  unity  of 
sentiment  and  interests  that  may  enable  her — in  har- 
mony with  the  solemn  provisions  of  the  Treaty  of 
Ancon  and  without  prejudicing  or  jeopardizing  the  ex- 
pectations of  Peru — to  acquire  definitively  the  do- 
minion and  sovereignty  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

Finally,  I  ought  to  express  to  Your  Excellency  that, 
to  the  firmness  with  which  I  uphold  the  incontroverti- 
ble rights  of  my  country,  I  am  pleased  to  add  the  sin- 
cerity with  which,  in  the  name  of  my  Government,  I 


362 

invite  Your  Excellency  to  seek  an  accord  based  on  the 
interests  and  expediencies  of  the  two  Republics  and 
actuated  by  the  same  purposes  as  those  with  which 
Chile  has  terminated  all  questions  with  the  other  con- 
tiguous states.  In  this  realm,  which  is  that  of  reality 
in  the  existence  of  peoples,  the  accord  between  Chile 
and  Peru  would  be  immediate,  full  and  enduring.  Your 
Excellency  can  be  assured  that  if  the  Government  of 
Chile  aspires  to  this  definitive  arrangement,  it  is  be- 
cause it  desires  to  move  in  harmony  with  the  course  in- 
dicated by  events  and  because  it  is  thoroughly  con- 
vinced that  moral,  political  and  economic  solidarity  is 
the  fundamental  law  of  nations. 

Be  pleased,  Mr.  Minister,  to  receive  the  assurances 
of  my  highest  and  most  distinguished  consideration. 

Luis  A.  Vergara. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Pern. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  to  Minister  of 
Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 

[Translation.] 

Ministry  of  Foreign  Relations, 

Lima,  April  25,  1905. 
Mr.  Minister: 

The  Secretary  of  the  Legation  of  Chile  has  de- 
livered to  this  office  Your  Excellency's  note  of  March 
15  last. 

Your  Excellency  recognizes  in  it  that  the  stipu- 
lations of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  and  Amity,  concluded 
by  Chile  with  Bolivia  on  October  20,  1904,  which  gave 
rise  to  my  Government's  note  of  protest  of  February 


363 

18  last  can  not  bind  or  affect  Peru  in  respect  of  the 
rights  which,  according  to  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  she 
retains  over  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica;  but 
at  the  same  time,  Your  Excellency  has  seen  fit  to 
adduce  divers  considerations  designed  to  prove  that 
Chile  exercises  temporary  sovereignty  and  dominion 
in  these  provinces,  thus  maintaining  theories  that  are 
incompatible  with  the  letter  and  the  spirit  of  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon  and  with  the  fundamental  principles 
of  international  law. 

By  its  very  nature,  sovereignty,  which  is  the  su- 
preme faculty  of  peoples  to  constitute  and  govern 
themselves  and  to  act  freely  and  independently,  and 
dominion,  which  is  also  the  right  to  the  free  and  ab- 
solute disposal  of  property — both  representing  the 
plenitude  of  nationality,  political  government  and  ter- 
ritorial rights — are  incompatible  with  a  situation  that 
is  provisional,  precarious  and  for  a  fixed  time,  at  the 
expiration  of  which,  according  to  an  international 
treaty,  a  decision  ought  to  be  reached  as  to  the  sov- 
ereignty and  dominion  that  are  claimed. 

In  the  exercise  of  sovereignty,  a  people  has  the 
power  to  decide  as  to  nationality  and  seigniorial 
rights,  and  in  the  exercise  of  dominion,  that  of  dis- 
posing of  territorial  property:  powers  that  can  not 
exist  while  the  nationality  and  seigniory  of  the  ter- 
ritories to  which  these  rights  refer  are  pending. 

There  are  examples  of  a  limitation  in  the  extent  of 
the  rights  of  sovereignty  and  dominion,  as  in  the 
ancient  fiction  of  semi-sovereign  states,  and  in  the 
situation  of  protected  and  tributary  states  and  ter- 
ritories; but  full  and  absolute  sovereignty  and  do- 
minion may  not  be  granted  for  a  limited  time  and  on 
a  contingent  condition,  for  the  characteristic  of  firm- 
ness and  the  effects  of  perpetuity  constitute  essential 


364 

attributes  of  those  rights,  the  subsistence  and  exer- 
cise of  which  are  incompatible  with  a  state  in  which 
the  nationality,  to  which  sovereignty  belongs,  and  the 
personality  of  the  owner,  to  which  dominion  pertains, 
are  subject  to  the  result  of  a  plebiscite  still  to  be  held. 

Nor  is  it  sustainable,  in  the  eyes  of  public  law, 
that  sovereignty  and  dominion  may  be  acquired,  apart 
from  cases  of  force,  without  the  cession  of  the  sov- 
ereign and  owner  of  the  territory. 

To  Peru  belonged  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and 
Arica. 

By  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  of  October  20,  1883,  she 
ceded  perpetually  and  unconditionally  to  Chile  the 
territory  of  Tarapaca. 

As  to  the  territory  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and 
Arica,  she  agreed  textually,  that: 

"it  will  continue  to  be  possessed  by  Chile  and  sub- 
ject to  Chilean  legislation  and  authorities  during 
the  period  of  ten  years,  reckoned  from  the  ratifica- 
tion of  the  present  Treaty  of  Peace. 

After  the  expiration  of  this  period,  a  plebiscite 
will  decide,  by  popular  vote,  whether  the  territory 
of  the  aforementioned  provinces  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  shall  remain  definitively  under  the  dominion 
and  sovereignty  of  Chile,  or  whether  it  shall  con- 
tinue to  be  a  part  of  the  Peruvian  territory. ' ' 

This  Treaty  is  wholly  clear  and  precise,  and  it  can 
give  rise  to  no  doubt  whatsoever. 

The  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica  were  at  that- 
time  under  the  military  occupation  of  Chile,  with  the 
character  and  effects  of  the  simple  tenancy  and  pro- 
visional administration  that  are  uniformly  assigned 
to  her  by  the  law  of  nations. 

In  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  it  was  expressly  agreed 
that  this  possession  should  continue  for  a  peremp- 


365 

tory  period;  but  there  was  no  cession  of  sovereignty 
and  dominion,  which  was  carefully  stipulated  in  re- 
spect of  the  province  of  Tarapaca,  and  reserved  in 
respect  of  those  of  Tacna  and  Arica  for  the  decision 
of  the  plebiscite,  which,  at  the  end  of  ten  years,  ex- 
pired on  March  28,  1894,  was  to  have  settled  de- 
finitively the  fate  of  the  provinces  indicated. 

It  is  possible,  by  extension,  to  comprehend  the  par- 
ticular within  the  general,  the  accessory  within  the 
principal,  the  accidental  within  the  essential;  but  it 
is  impossible,  in  opposition  to  the  realm  of  ideas  and 
to  all  legal  principle,  to  proceed  in  a  contrary  manner, 
and  understand  sovereignty  and  dominion  within  pos- 
session and  its  effects,  which  is  all  that  was  stipu- 
lated in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  during  the  ten  years  of 
Chilean  occupation  of  the  territories  of  Tacna  and 
Arica. 

Your  Excellency,  in  the  effort  to  support  his  theory 
of  temporary  sovereignty  and  independence,  invokes 
the  recent  Treaty  on  the  demarcation  of  frontiers 
concluded  between  Peru  and  Bolivia,  on  September 
23,  1903,  in  which  it  was  agreed: 

Article  IT.  The  high  contracting  parties  equally 
agree  to  proceed,  according  to  the  stipulations  of 
the  present  Treaty,  to  the  demarcation  of  the  line 
that  separates  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica 
from  the  Bolivian  province  of  Carangas,  immedi- 
ately after  they  shall  be  again  under  the  sover- 
eignty of  Peru. 

Your  Excellency's  enlightened  judgment  will  easily 
comprehend  that  in  the  Treaty  mentioned  sovereignty 
and  dominion  over  the  provinces  under  discussion  be- 
long to  Peru,  and  that  she  has  not  renounced  them, 
although  it  is  recognized  that  the  exercise  of  them  is 


366 

suspended,  as  is  the  reality  of  facts,  as  a  consequence 
of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon. 

In  the  political  realm,  as  in  the  civil,  the  exercise 
of  a  right  may  he  in  suspense,  in  divers  cases,  but 
the  right  in  itself  does  not  disappear,  save  for  causes 
that  legally  extinguish  or  transfer  it. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  can  be  no  exercise  of  a 
right  that  is  not  possessed,  either  by  a  title  of  one's 
own  or  by  transfer  by  the  one  to  whom  it  belongs 
and  who  has  not  renounced  it. 

It  is  not  contrary  to  the  incontrovertible  force  of 
those  principles  of  universal  legislation  that,  until 
the  definitive  situation  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  shall  be  decided,  they  shall  be  subject,  in  the 
internal  and  civil  sense,  to  the  Chilean  authorities 
and  legislation,  which  is  the  true  and  only  situation 
established  by  the  Treaty  of  Peace  of  1883  In  the 
provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica  during  the  ten  years 
of  possession  that  was  granted  to  Chile :  a  title  that 
legally  ceased  after  the  expiration  of  the  period. 

Your  Excellency  insinuates  the  idea  that  the  date 
on  which  the  plebiscite  was  to  be  effected  was  not 
peremptorily  fixed  in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon;  but  there 
can  be  no  doubt  as  to  whether  it  was  stipulated  in 
it  that  the  plebiscite  was  to  be  held  on  the  expiration 
of  the  ten  years  of  occupation,  that  is,  on  March  28, 
1894,  without  its  being  materially  necessary  to  in- 
dicate that  date;  for  it  would  be  justly  determined 
by  designating  it  by  years,  which  began  to  be  reckoned, 
according  to  the  Treaty,  after  it  was  ratified. 

When  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  was  negotiated  and  ap- 
proved, and  afterward,  at  all  times,  the  Chilean 
Chancellery  understood  it  thus,  invariably,  without 
ever  having  maintained  any  contrary  opinion. 


367 

Finally,  Your  Excellency  has  deemed  it  useful  to 
recall  cases  that  he  regards  as  territorial  cessions 
cloaked  by  means  of  plebiscites,  but  whatsoever  be 
the  opinion  that  it  is  sought  to  reach  regarding  them, 
they  do  not  bear  on  the  entirely  different  and  par- 
ticular situation  that  was  categorically  and  loyally 
agreed  to  in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon. 

In  the  peace  negotiation  between  Chile  and  Peru 
that  preceded  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  Chile  exacted, 
in  addition  to  the  cession  of  Tarapaca — whose  im- 
portance and  wealth  has  exceeded  all  her  calcula- 
tions— an  indemnity  in  money  of  twenty  million  pesos, 
which  was  not  accepted  by  Peru. 

The  Chilean  negotiators  then  proposed  that  of  com- 
pensating her  by  the  sale  and  cession  of  the  territories 
of  the  provinces  of#Tacna  and  Arica,  which  was  also 
rejected  absolutely  by  the  Peruvian  negotiators. 

As  a  final  result  and  without  any  other  understand- 
ing relative  to  the  case,  an  agreement  was  arrived 
at  on  the  stipulation  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  by 
which  the  said  territories  continued  in  the  possession 
of  Chile  for  ten  years,  at  the  expiration  of  which  a 
plebiscite  was  to  be  held  to  settle,  by  popular  vote, 
the  question  of  their  definitive  sovereignty  and  do- 
minion, with  the  obligation,  on  the  part  of  the  country 
in  whose  favor  the  plebiscite  might  decide,  to  pay  ten 
million  pesos  to  the  other  contracting  party. 

These  are  the  true  antecedents  of  those  negotiations 
and  they  are  fully  confirmed  in  the  memorial  presented 
by  the  Chilean  Chancellery  to  the  National  Congress 
in  1883 :  a  document  of  authentic  force  and  value  to 
Your  Excellency,  in  which,  on  the  submission  of  the 
Treaty  to  the  approval  of  the  Congress  of  Chile,  was 
presented  a  detailed  history  of  said  negotiations,  which 
concludes  with  these  words: 


368 

"If  the  result  of  the  plebiscite  should  restore 
the  region  of  Tacna  and  Arica  to  the  dominion  of 
Peru,  it  would  be  in  keeping  with  the  loyal  and 
honorable  policy  of  Chile  to  respect  the  decision 
of  those  peoples,  she  limiting  herself  to  receiving 
a  pecuniary  compensation  of  ten  million  pesos, 
which  together  with  the  revenues  that  would  have 
accrued  to  us  in  the  meantime  from  the  occupation 
of  those  territories  for  ten  years,  would  exceed, 
without  any  doubt,  what  we  had  demanded  on  the 
same  grounds  in  the  bases  proposed  in  1881  and 
1882." 

Peru  therefore,  by  the  explicit  and  categorical  stipu- 
lations of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  ceded  directly  and 
definitively  the  very  valuable  province  of  Tarapaca, 
but  in  respect  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  she  did  not  accept 
any  other  stipulation  than  the  one  expressly  contained 
in  that  international  Treaty,  under  the  public  and 
inviolable  faith  of  the  two  countries  that  concluded  it. 

This  is  also  recognized  by  Your  Excellency,  although 
he  deduced  from  the  said  Treaty  the  erroneous  opin- 
ions that  my  Government  is  compelled  to  rectify  by 
the  present  note. 

The  lack  of  accord  in  respect  of  so  important  and 
delicate  a  matter  demonstrates  still  more  the  im- 
perative necessity  that  I  have  expressed  to  Your  Ex- 
cellency in  my  former  communication  of  February 
18  last,  of  carrying  into  effect  the  Treaty  of  Ancon 
by  holding  the  plebiscite  agreed  on  in  it,  which  ought 
to  have  been  effected  eleven  years  ago. 

Your  Excellency  informs  me  that  the  delay  is  not 
attributable  to  Chile.  This  Chancellery  holds  that  it 
is  very  easy  for  it  to  prove  that  Peru  has  always 
been  disposed  to  the  immediate  execution  of  the  plebi- 
scite that  was  stipulated  in  the  said  Treaty. 


369 

However,  since  Your  Excellency  appreciates,  any- 
way, the  absolute  and  just  necessity  of  ending  this 
anomalous  and  irregular  international  situation,  you 
invite  my  Government  to  negotiate  and  settle  de- 
finitively this  transcendent  affair. 

The  Government  of  my  country  is  highly  pleased 
to  accept  Your  Excellency's  invitation  to  negotiate 
the  fulfillment  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  in  respect  of 
the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  it  being  convinced 
at  the  same  time  that  nothing  would  contribute  more 
to  strengthen  the  cordial  relations  that  Your  Excel- 
lency assures  me  ought  to  unite  the  American  peoples 
for  the  achievement  of  their  solidary  destinies  than 
the  faithful  discharge  of  their  international  engage- 
ments and  the  relating  of  their  reciprocal  interests. 

Be  pleased,  Your  Excellency,  to  accept  once  more 
the  assurances  of  my  high  and  distinguished  consider- 
ation. 

J.  Prado  y  Ugarteche. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Forei<m  Relations  of  Chile. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile  to  Minister  of 
Foreign  Relations  of  Peru. 

[Translation.] 

Ministry  of  Foreign  Relations, 
t  Santiago,  June  5,  1905. 
Mr.  Minister: 

I  have  received  Your  Excellency's  communication 
of  April  25  last,  designed  to  rectify  the  erroneous 
opinions,  which,  according  to  Your  Excellency,  I  ex- 
pressed in  my  communication  of  March  15. 


370 

Respecting,  naturally,  Your  Excellency's  opinion, 
it  is  necessary  to  call  his  attention  to  the  circumstance 
that  the  doctrines  propounded  by  this  Chancellery, 
and  which  Your  Excellency  rectifies,  are  not  only  in 
accord  with  the  principles  of  international  law,  but 
also  with  the  practical  application  that  has  invariably 
been  made  of  them  by  the  European  states. 

As  for  the  rest,  my  Government  is  pleased  that 
Your  Excellency's  Government  has  accepted  the  in- 
vitation that  I  had  the  honor  to  extend  to  it  in  my 
note  already  mentioned,  with  a  view  to  bringing  about 
an  agreement  based  on  the  interests  and  expediencies 
of  the  two  Republics  and  actuated  by  the  same  pur- 
poses as  those  with  which  Chile  has  settled  all  ques- 
tions with  the  other  contiguous  states. 

Be  pleased,  Mr.  Minister  to  receive  the  assurances 
of  my  highest  and  most  distinguished  consideration. 

Luis  A.  Vergara. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile  to  Minister  of 
Peru  in  Chile. 


(Confidential.) 
[Translation.] 


(Number  3.) 


Ministry  of  Foreign  Relations, 

Santiago,  March  25,  1908. 
Mr.  Minister: 

In  the  first  interview  that  Your  Excellency  held 
with  the  undersigned,  you  had  the  goodness  to  ex- 
press the  desire  to  undertake  at  once  the  solution  of 


371 

the  problem  of  the  definitive  nationality  of  Tacna  and 
Arica,  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  the  Treaty  of 
Peace  signed  at  Ancon. 

The  undersigned  took  occasion  to  offer  a  suggestion 
with  a  view  to  ascertaining  previously  whether  it 
would  be  more  expedient  to  study,  in  the  first  place, 
the  problem  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  or  the  different  plans 
designed  to  create  and  foster  amicable  international 
relations,  and  he  asserted  that,  as  for  himself,  he 
was  inclined  to  take  the  latter  course,  both  because 
it  was  the  procedure  favored  by  the  Government  of 
Chile  in  promoting  the  renewal  of  diplomatic  relations 
between  the  two  countries  and  because  this  seemed 
also  to  be  the  opinion  of  the  Peruvian  Government  in 
accepting  the  invitation  of  Chile  for  this  renewal  and 
in  entering  fully  on  this  course  by  concluding  a  short 
time  ago  with  our  Legation  in  Lima  three  conventions 
of  a  different  character;  and,  besides,  because  it 
seemed,  too,  to  be  the  dominant  inclination  of  Peru- 
vian public  opinion,  to  judge  by  articles  published 
in  some  of  the  organs  of  her  press. 

Your  Excellency  was  pleased  to  say  to  me  that 
to  his  Government  the  question  of  Tacna  and  Arica 
is  of  such  vital  importance  that,  in  comparison  with 
it,  all  other  questions  appear  inconsiderable  or  may 
be  postponed  and  he  saw  fit  to  invite  me  formally 
to  settle  that  one,  in  the  first  place. 

In  spite  of  this  difference  of  opinion  as  to  which 
procedure  would  be  the  more  acceptable,  I  am  pleased 
to  testify  that,  in  the  several  conferences  held  with 
Your  Honor  hitherto,  there  has  been  a  complete  agree- 
ment in  respect  of  its  being  our  fundamental  duty  to 
seek  adequate  means  to  reestablish  and  strengthen  a 
condition  of  frank  cordiality  between  the  two  coun- 
tries, convinced,  as  we  are,  that  it  would  abound  in 


372 

benefits  for  Chile  and  for  Peru,  and  that  it  would  be  in 
harmony  with  the  dictates  of  their  historic  confra- 
ternity and  with  the  requirements  of  their  full  de- 
velopment in  the  future. 

While  seeking  to  harmonize  the  desires  expressed 
by  Your  Excellency  that  Chile  and  Peru  would  ac- 
complish a  practical,  far-seeing  and  patriotic  under- 
taking by  embodying  the  solution  of  that  territorial 
controversy  in  a  series  of  conventions  thai:  would 
tend  solidly  to  establish  a  community  of  interests 
between  the  two  peoples. 

To  that  end,  I  had  the  honor  to  propose  to  Your 
Excellency  a  scheme  of  negotiations,  which  consist  of 
several  plans  of  a  convention,  the  execution  of  which 
would  satisfy,  in  the  opinion  of  my  Government,  the 
reciprocal  desire  for  concord  that  prevails  in  both 
Eepublics. 

Perhaps  because  they  were  presented  with  a  certain 
vagueness,  those  proposals  did  not  have  the  fate  to 
be  understood  with  perfect  clearness;  this  seems  to 
be  indicated  by  the  replies  of  the  Government  of  Peru 
which,  in  respect  of  them,  Your  Excellency  has  had 
the  goodness  to  transmit  to  me. 

I  propose,  in  the  present  communication,  in  con- 
formity with  what  has  been  announced  to  Your  Ex- 
cellency, to  formalize  and  clearly  define  the  fun- 
damental bases  of  that  plan,  both  to  preserve  them 
from  errors  and  omissions  inherent  to  the  fallibility 
of  memory,  and  to  supply  Your  Excellency  and  his 
Government  with  a  concrete  basis  of  deliberation. 

My  Government  persuaded,  as  it  is,  that  there  is 
no  tie  that  more  closely  unites  nations  than  that  of 
a  community  of  interests,  from  which  springs  the 
common  welfare,  holds  that  Chile  and  Peru  will  not 
have  accomplished  a  complete  work  by  merely  re- 


373 

moving  the  hindrance  that  is  opposed  to  the  absolute 
cordiality  of  their  relations  through  the  subsistance 
of  the  question  of  Tacna  and  Arica;  and  I  cherish 
the  confidence  that,  as  the  solution  of  this  arduous 
problem  is  bound  up  with  that  of  several  other  prob- 
lems which,  from  their  very  nature,  are  harmonious 
and  of  reciprocal  advantage,  the  solution  would  be 
greatly  facilitated. 

The  negotiation  as  a  body  that  I  have  the  honor 
to  outline  to  Your  Excellency  embraces  the  following 
subjects : 

1.  The  adoption  of  a  commercial  convention  that 
will  grant  free  custom-house  entry  to  certain  and  de- 
terminate products  of  each  of  the  countries  that  are 
consumed  in  the  other. 

2.  The  conclusion  of  a  convention  to  foster  the  mer- 
chant marine  and  to  establish  a  steamship  line  paid 
for  or  subventioned  by  the  two  Governments,  for  the 
purpose  of  developing  their  coast  trade. 

3.  The  association  of  the  two  countries  to  accomplish 
by  means  of  their  resources  and  their  credit  the  work 
of  connecting  the  capitals,  Santiago  and  Lima,  by  rail- 
way. 

4.  The  settlement  of  the  protocol  that  shall  decide 
as  to  the  form  of  the  stipulated  plebiscite  for  the 
determination  of  the  definitive  nationality  of  Tacna 
and  Arica. 

5.  A  convention  to  determine  the  amount  of  the 
indemnity  to  be  paid  to  the  other  country  by  the  one 
that  shall  acquire  the  definitive  sovereignty  over  that 
territory. 

I  trust  that  Your  Excellency  and  his  enlightened 
and  patriotic  Government  can  not  fail  to  find  in  this 
series  of  conventions  an  evidence  of  the  sincerity  of 
our  desire  to  seek  a  way  to  assure  for  ever  the  greatest 


374 

cordiality  of  relations  with  Peru;  and  that  they  will 
at  least  be  persuaded  that  there  is  manifest  advantage 
in  giving  to  the  negotiation  that  we  have  in  hand  all 
the  amplitude  that  I  have  outlined.  If  it  were  con- 
fined to  the  mere  organization  of  the  plebiscite,  it 
might  readily  turn  out  that  the  country  that  should 
be  disappointed  in  her  expectations  of  victory  would 
be  ill  disposed,  at  least  for  some  time,  to  fostering 
the  amity  for  which  we  long.  Let  us  at  once  rid  our- 
selves of  all  causes  of  later  disquietude.  Greater 
confidence  in  its  results  would  be  inspired,  unques- 
tionably, by  a  negotiation  in  which  an  effort  should 
be  made,  at  one  and  the  same  time,  to  eliminate  exist- 
ing difficulties  and  to  furnish  pledges  of  future  cordi- 
ality. 

In  the  act  of  the  plebiscite  itself  would  be  felt  the 
wholesome  influence  of  a  previous  accord  between  the 
Governments  regarding  the  subjects  embraced  in  my 
proposal;  if  the  plebiscite  were  not  concerted  as  an 
isolated  case,  the  voters  would  not  come  to  the  polls 
constrained  by  the  fear  that  their  votes  might  be 
new  grounds  of  discord;  because  they  would  be  as- 
sured in  advance  that  the  result,  whatever  it  might 
be,  would  not  interfere  with  the  acquisition  of  any  of 
the  benefits  of  peace,  which  would  already  be  secured 
in  advance. 

This  negotiation  in  general,  since  it  would  consist 
of  different  elements  that  would  complement  and  com- 
pensate one  another,  ought  naturally  to  be  looked 
upon  as  a  whole,  single  and  indivisible. 

I  need  say  little  to  explain  and  to  justify  the  first 
amd  isecond  of  these  plans  of  which  the  proposed 
negotiation  consists.  The  free  entry  of  the  products 
of  one  of  the  countries  into  the  other  would  produce 
benefits  that  are  beyond  discussion ;  and  in  the  present 


375 

case  the  fundamental  difference  of  zones  gives  rise 
to  differences  of  products  between  Chile  and  Peru 
that  readily  permit  the  reciprocal  removal  of  customs 
duties  from  the  products  peculiar  to  each  country: 
Peruvian  sugar,  rice  and  cattle,  for  example,  and  the 
cereals,  wines  and  fruits  of  Chile  could,  under  such 
favorable  circumstances,  find  in  the  other  country  an 
advantageous  market. 

The  development  of  shipping,  besides  the  advan- 
tages that  will  be  derived  by  this  industry  itself,  would 
contribute  indirectly  to  making  this  kind  of  commer- 
cial interchange  possible  and  easy. 

The  construction  of  the  sections  of  railway  that 
are  required  to  connect  the  capitals  of  the  two  coun- 
tries is,  in  my  opinion,  an  undertaking  that  demands 
the  consideration  of  the  two  Governments  for  a  mul- 
titude of  reasons,  since  it  would  not  only  be  to  their 
manifest  advantage,  but  also  in  the  interest  and  for 
the  security  of  the  continent.  The  Republics  of  Chile 
and  Peru  would  thus  contribute,  to  a  considerable 
degree,  to  the  completion  of  the  Pan-American  rail- 
way, an  achievement  necessary  to  securing  the  moral 
unity  of  America,  a  palpable  manifestation  of  the 
true  sentiment  that  ought  to  inform  the  foreign  policy 
of  all  the  republics  of  the  continent. 

For  the  construction  of  this  railway  the  two  Gov- 
ernments could  jointly  place  a  loan,  on  the  security 
of  the  enterprise  itself,  or  they  could  contract  for 
the  construction  by  guaranteeing  a  certain  interest 
on  the  capital  invested. 

Naturally  the  obligation  incurred  would  be  for  an 
identical  sum  on  the  part  of  each  state,  and  the  lesser 
outlay  involved  in  the  Peruvian  and  Chilean  sections 
could  be  taken  as  a  basis  on  which  to  fix  the  budgets ; 
all  within  a  prudent  maximum,  which  would  be  fixed 
in  advance. 


376 

As  to  the  protocol  that  is  to  determine  the  con- 
ditions under  which  the  plebiscite  of  Tacna  and  Arica 
is  to  be  effected:  I  ought  to  be  somewhat  more  ex- 
plicit in  this  respect,  as  I  have  been  in  the  discussions 
engaged  in  with  Your  Excellency  regarding  the  pos- 
sible bases. 

First  of  all,  however,  I  deem  it  necessary  to  re- 
call a  fact  related  to  the  present  negotiations,  which 
casts  abundant  light  on  the  spirit  that  animated  my 
Government  when  it  originated  it  and  which  continues 
to  animate  it  at  the  present  time. 

In  the  month  of  March,  1901,  the  Government  of 
Peru  withdrew  the  Legation  that  it  had  accredited 
to  Santiago,  and  it  let  four  years  pass  without  re- 
storing it  and  without  manifesting  in  any  way  a  pur- 
pose to  remain  unrepresented;  and,  on  the  contrary, 
it  seemed  inclined  to  prolong  this  interruption  of  re- 
lations for  an  indefinite  time,  to  judge  by  the  tone 
of  certain  documents  that  emanated  from  its  Chancel- 
lery. 

Nevertheless,  this  Ministry,  under  charge  at  that 
time  of  my  distinguished  predecessor,  Don  Luis  An- 
tonio Vergara,  when  it  replied  to  the  last  of  the 
documents  alluded  to,  which  bears  the  date  of  Feb- 
ruary 18,  1905,  saw  to  it  that  spontaneous  and  sincere 
words  in  behalf  of  an  understanding  should  reach  the 
Government  at  Lima,  inviting  it  to  reinstate  its  *Le- 
gation  in  our  country  in  order  "to  seek,"  as  he  said, 
"an  understanding  based  on  the  interests  and  ex- 
pediencies of  the  two  Republics  and  actuated  by  the 
same  purposes  as  those  with  which  Chile  has  ter- 
minated all  questions  with  the  other  contiguous  states. 
In  this  realm,  which  is  that  of  reality  in  the  existence 
of  peoples,  the  accord  between  Chile  and  Peru  would 
be  immediate,  full  and  enduring." 


377 

I  beg  Your  Excellency  to  believe  that,  in  alluding 
to  these  facts,  I  am  in  nowise  constrained  by  a  de- 
sire to  awaken  unpleasant  memories.  I  mention  them 
solely  to  prove  thereby,  in  an  authentic  manner,  that 
my  Government  has  never  experienced  a  weakening 
of  its  friendly  sentiments,  even  in  the  days  in  which 
Peru  and  Chile  were  furthest  apart. 

If  Chile  had  not  been  animated  by  this  spirit,  the 
diplomatic  interregnum  would  have  continued,  and 
there  would  have  been  no  occasion  to  set  on  foot 
this  negotiation,  which  I,  for  my  part,  have  under- 
taken with  a  hope  deeply  rooted  in  my  spirit  that 
it  will  lead  us  to  a  satisfactory  result. 

Your  Honor  is  well  aware  that  the  Treaty  of  1883, 
in  leaving  to  the  resolution  of  a  plebiscite  the  de- 
termination of  the  definitive  nationality  of  Tacna  and 
Arica,  did  not  make  it  clear  what  ought  to  be  un- 
derstood by  this  plebiscite,  nor  did  it  fix  either  the 
manner  or  the  form  if  its  execution.  These  omissions 
may  not  be  reasonably  attributed  to  an  oversight  on 
the  part  of  the  negotiators,  but  to  an  implicit  re- 
cognition that  the  procedure  adopted  could  be  no  other 
than  that  of  the  plebiscites  incorporated  in  the  history 
of  international  law. 

My  Government,  however,  desiring  now,  as  for- 
merly, to  arrive  at  an  amicable  solution,  would  be 
disposed  not  to  adhere  strictly  to  rights  conferred 
upon  it  by  the  spirit  and  the  law  of  Clause  III  of 
the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  and  not  to  keep,  either,  exactly 
to  the  realm  in  which  publicists  and  diplomatic  pre- 
cedents place  plebiscitary  conventions,  when  Peru, 
on  her  part,  will  facilitate  understanding  by  renounc- 
ing extreme  claims  that  would  unquestionably  frus- 
trate it. 

It  will  not  escape  the  enlightened  judgment  of  Your 
Excellency  that  the  right  to  vote  in  this  case  does 


378 

not  possess  the  object  and  significance  that  the  in- 
ternal Constitution  and  laws  of  every  state  attribute 
to  political  suffrage.  Its  character  is  eminently  in- 
ternational, inasmuch  as  it  is  a  question  of  determin- 
ing to  which  country  belongs  definitive  sovereignty 
over  a  portion  of  territory.  There  is  no  doubt  then 
that  all  the  qualified  inhabitants  of  the  territory  ought 
to  be  called  on  to  exercise  the  right  of  plebiscitary 
suffrage;  not  alone  the  citizens  of  one  or  the  other 
of  the  interested  countries  that  may  be  residing  in 
the  territory  and  that  are  exempt  from  all  inability 
or  incapacity;  but  also  all  the  foreign  residents  that 
meet  the  same  requirements. 

The  wishes  of  foreigners  ought  to  be  consulted  in 
the  plebiscite,  both  because  their  right  was  explicitly 
recognized  in  the  Treaty,  when  the  formula  "  popular 
vote"  was  employed,  and  because  it  is  not  just  or 
reasonable  to  deprive  them  of  participation  in  a  re- 
ferendum as  to  the  fate  of  the  land  in  which  they 
have  established  their  interests  or  have  brought  up 
families  and  to  the  prosperity  of  which  they  have 
contributed  to  a  very  considerable  degree  by  their 
productive  and  persevering  labor. 

My  Government  understands  likewise  that,  owing 
to  the  fact  that  it  is  exercising  sovereignty  in  Tacna 
and  Arica,  it  is  incumbent  on  it  to  designate  the  per- 
sonnel that  is  to  preside  over  the  plebiscitary  act, 
whether  in  the  registration  of  the  electors,  in  the 
taking  of  the  ballot  or  in  the  announcement  of  the 
results. 

And  to  this  end,  I  am  pleased  to  reiterate  to  Your 
Excellency  the  most  absolute  assurances  of  the  resolve 
entertained  by  my  Government  to  adopt  the  most 
adequate  measures  and  formalities  to  guarantee  that 
the  popular  referendum  shall  occasion  no  ground  for 


Q 


79 


the  least  distrust  on  the  part  of  Your  Excellency's 
Government,  and  that  the  result  will  leave  no  room 
for  recriminations  of  any  kind  whatsoever. 

Entering  somewhat  into  the  details  that  are  a 
ground  of  preoccupation  to  Your  Excellency,  I  may 
say  to  Your  Excellency  in  advance  that  I  see  no 
reason  why  our  authorities,  in  making  up  the  election 
boards,  should  not  grant  representation  to  citizens  of 
Peruvian  nationality  and  to  citizens  of  other  national- 
ities. 

The  plan  of  a  convention  that  I  have  had  the  honor 
to  propose  to  Your  Excellency,  under  number  5,  would 
stipulate  an  increase  in  the  sum  of  money  that  should 
be  paid  to  the  other  state,  in  the  nature  of  an  in- 
demnity, by  the  one  that  shall  be  favored  by  the  plebi- 
scitary decision. 

The  undersigned  considers  that  this  would  be  an- 
other of  the  most  efficacious  means  for  accomplish- 
ing his  dominating  purpose,  that  the  solution  of  this 
problem  may  leave  the  least  possible  bitterness. 

The  amount  of  this  sum  could  be  fixed  at  between 
two  and  three  million  pounds  sterling. 

The  periods,  guaranties  and  conditions  of  its  pay- 
ment would  be  fixed  by  common  consent  in  the  manner 
that  might  be  deemed  easiest,  most  convenient  and 
certain. 

A  manner  which,  in  my  judgment,  would  consider- 
ably facilitate  the  financial  operation  would  be  that 
of  combining  the  payment  of  the  indemnity  with  the 
interest  on  the  debt  that  would  have  to  be  contracted 
for  the  construction  of  the  international  railway. 

With  this  destination,  the  sum  payable  would  lose 
its  characteristic  of  compensation,  which  it  would 
possess  according  to  the  Treaty  of  Ancon;  it  would 
be  removed  from  the  recollection  of  our  past  dis- 


380 

sidences  and  it  would  be  clothed  only  with  the  design 
of  rendering  indissoluble  the  union  of  our  countries. 

I  congratulate  myself,  Your  Excellency,  on  being 
able  to  express  here  my  satisfaction  with  the  noble 
attitude  of  courtesy  and  loyalty  that  Your  Excellency 
has  invariably  displayed  during  our  deliberations. 

In  order  worthily  to  reciprocate  it  I  have  striven 
at  every  moment  to  express  to  Your  Excellency,  with 
the  most  absolute  sincerity  and  scrupulousness,  the 
true  sentiments  that  the  Government  and  the  people  of 
Chile  cherish  for  Peru,  and  I  trust  that  Your  Excel- 
lency may  have  been  able  to  reach  the  conviction  that 
there  exists  in  Chile  an  earnest  desire  to  discover  and 
to  adopt  a  formula  which,  without  considering  sacri- 
fices, will  enable  her  to  fulfill  the  duty  of  reconciling 
the  reestablishment  of  the  old  Chilean-Peruvian  har- 
mony with  the  safeguarding  of  the  vital  interests  of  the 
country. 

On  the  present  occasion,  permit  me,  Your  Excel- 
lency, to  conclude  by  expressing  the  hope  that  Your 
Excellency's  Government  will  coincide  with  mine  in 
the  view  that  the  series  of  arrangements  proposed 
here  is  to  the  advantage  of  both  countries,  that  it 
is  capable  of  dispelling  all  distrust  between  them  and 
that  it  will  tend  to  open  for  them  a  new  era  of  pros- 
perity by  reestablishing  the  confraternity  of  those 
days  in  which,  united,  the  Chilean  and  the  Peruvian 
flags  led  our  armies  and  fleets,  both  to  the  achievement 
of  independence  and  to  its  defense. 

I  take  this  opportunity  to  renew  to  Your  Excellency 
the  assurances  of  my  most  distinguished  consideration. 

F.  Pug  a  Borne. 
To  His  Excellency, 

Senor  Don  Guillermo  A.  Seoane, 

Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipoten- 
tiary of  Peru  in  Chile. 


381 

Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Minister  of  Foreign  Rela- 
tions of  Chile. 

[Translation.] 

Legation  of  Peru  in  Chile, 

Santiago,  May  8,  1908. 
Mr.  Minister: 

I  have  the  honor  to  reply,  in  conformity  with  instruc- 
tions received  from  my  Government,  to  Your  Excel- 
lency's courteous  communication  of  March  25  last. 

Independently  of  the  view  taken  of  the  proposals  it 
contains,  my  Government  has  welcomed  with  particu- 
lar pleasure  the  friendly  spirit  that  characterized 
those  proposals;  and  I  have  received  instructions  to 
express  it  to  Your  Excellency,  at  the  same  time  as  the 
longing  with  which  Peru  desires  to  see  removed  at  once 
all  the  difficulties  that  militate  against  a  fraternal  ap- 
proach to  Chile. 

In  that  communication,  for  the  purpose  of  prevent- 
ing the  errors  or  omissions  inherent  to  the  treacherous- 
ness  of  memory  and  to  provide  my  Government  with  a 
concrete  basis  of  deliberation,  Your  Excellency  saw 
fit  to  reproduce  the  five  fundamental  points  of  the  plan 
that  you  communicated  verbally  in  our  first  interview, 
considering  them  as  a  whole,  single  and  indivisible. 

Those  points — including  the  one  relative  to  the  plebi- 
scite still  pending,  which,  in  observance  of  the 
Treaty  qf  Ancon,  should  have  been  held  in  1894 — have 
in  view  adjustments  of  a  commercial  character,  with 
free  trade  or  customs  privileges  in  favor  of  certain 
products  of  each  of  the  two  Eepublics  consumed  in  the 
other ;  the  development  of  a  merchant  marine  and  the 
establishment  of  a  steamship  line ;  the  construction  of 
a  railway  that  will  connect  the  capitals,  Lima  and  San- 
tiago; and  an  increase  of  the  indemnity  that  is  to  be 


382 

paid  by  the  country  that  shall  acquire  definitive  sover- 
eignty over  the  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  which 
sum,  not  specified  in  our  conferences,  Your  Excellency 
now  fixes  at  between  two  and  three  million  pounds 
sterling. 

The  undersigned  begs  to  remark  that  the  reply 
transmitted  to  the  one  to  which  Your  Excellency  al- 
ludes is  confined  exclusively  to  what  has  been  sug- 
gested as  to  possible  direct  arrangements,  since,  in 
that  which  has  to  do  with  the  territories  mentioned,  the 
Government  of  Peru  has  always  preferred  and  con- 
tinues to  prefer  the  strict  observance  of  that  engage- 
ment. 

It  is  not,  therefore,  because  there  has  been  any 
vagueness  in  the  clear  exposition  of  Your  Excellency, 
or  insufficient  acuteness  in  the  perception  of  it,  that 
the  Peruvian  Chancellery  has  passed  over  that  series 
of  heterogeneous  conventions  which  I  opportunely 
transmitted,  just  as  Your  Excellency  formulated  them ; 
but  because,  owing  to  the  judgment  of  which  I  am  the 
interpreter,  it  desires  to  proceed  at  once,  while  avoid- 
ing complications,  to  the  solution  of  the  plebiscitary 
problem. 

The  invitation  of  Your  Excellency's  distinguished 
predecessor,  Don  Luis  Antonio  Vergara,  to  seek,  on 
the  renewal  of  diplomatic  relations,  "an  agreement 
based  on  the  interests  and  expediencies  of  the  two  Re- 
publics" does  not  impose  on  Peru  a  direct  arrange- 
ment, nor  does  it  excuse  Chile  from  the  formality  of 
the  plebiscite. 

After  the  vote  of  the  Chilean  Chamber  of  Deputies, 
which,  in  returning  the  Billinghurst-Latorre  Protocol 
already  approved  by  the  Senate  in  1901,  recommended 
to  the  Executive  Power  "new  diplomatic  efforts 
to  carry  into  effect  the  third  Clause  of  the  Treaty  of 


383 

Ancon ; n  in  view  of  the  declarations  of  His  Excellency 
President  Montt,  to  which  I  gave  attention  when  I  pre- 
sented my  credentials ;  and,  above  all,  in  consideration 
of  what  was  provided  in  that  Treaty  with  the  force  of 
an  international  law,  which  stipulates  solely  and  ex- 
clusively the  plebiscite  mentioned,  I  hesitate  to  believe, 
Mr.  Minister,  that  Your  Excellency  attributes  a  re- 
strictive scope  and  application  to  that  word  of  a  mere 
desire,  in  the  same  communication  in  which,  among 
other  topics,  appears  that  of  the  plebiscitary  protocol. 

The  latter,  which  is  of  a  merely  political  character, 
has  no  relation  whatsoever  with  commerce,  a  merchant 
marine,  a  steamship  line,  a  railway  or  even  indemniza- 
tion. 

Those  points,  without  connection  among  themselves 
and  independent  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  may  be  nego- 
tiated separately,  and  they  will  receive  the  favorable 
attention  of  my  Government,  after  the  execution  of  the 
plebiscitary  protocol;  that  is,  when  there  shall  have* 
been  eliminated  from  the  relations  of  Peru  and  Chile 
the  problem  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  the  existence  of 
which,  since  it  refers  to  the  fulfillment  of  a  solemn 
treaty,  can  not  be  settled  by  the  conclusion  of  other 
treaties. 

It  was  wdth  an  identical  view  that,  in  1893,  when  the 
Plenipotentiary  of  Chile,  Senor  Vial  Solar,  received 
proposals  quite  similar  to  Your  Excellency's  present 
ones,  he  replied : 

"The  very  importance  and  nature  of  this  sub- 
ject counsel,  in  the  judgment  of  my  Government, 
that  it  shall  not  be  treated  outside  of  its  natural 
realm,  nor  be  complicated  with  an  affair  of  so  dif- 
ferent a  nature,  as  is  the  one  that  relates  to  the  de- 
finitive nationality  of  the  departments  of  Tacna 
and  Arica. 


384 

My  Government,  consequently,  will  always 
gladly  accept  any  suggestion  of  Your  Excellency's 
that  may  have  as  its  object  the  opening  of  negotia- 
tions for  the  establishment  of  a  system  of  free 
trade  and  reciprocal  commercial  privileges,  and 
it  will  use  every  favorable  opportunity  to  initiate, 
on  its  part,  measures  for  this  purpose  with  the  en- 
lightened Government  of  Peru,  but  at  the  same 
time  it  considers  that  there  exists  no  motive  that 
counsels  the  consideration  of  this  question  in  con- 
'  nection  with  questions  that  relate  to  the  definitive 
possession  of  the  departments  of  Tacna  and 
Arica." 

On  a  solemn  occasion,  I  had  the  honor  to  explain 
that,  in  spite  of  the  passage  of  time,  there  is  preserved 
and  transmitted  in  the  cities  just  mentioned,  as  vehe- 
mently as  in  the  times  of  sacrifice  and  glory,  the  senti- 
ment of  nationality,  whose  longings  the  other  sections 
of  the  Peruvian  fatherland  reciprocate  with  all  their 
own. 

While  this  situation  continues,  the  obstacle  to  com- 
plete cordiality  is  destined  to  subsist,  whether  or  not 
there  be  treaties  of  another  character,  and  whatsoever 
shall  be  the  individual  sympathies  nurtured  by  the 
glow  of  missions  of  peace. 

After  the  consummation  of  the  plebiscite,  it  is  not 
to  be  feared  that  the  country  disappointed  in  her  expec- 
tations will  be  ill  disposed  to  reestablishing  the  friend- 
ship of  other  times ;  for  the  people  at  large  are  alone 
responsible  for  the  fairness  of  the  vote  they  cast ;  not 
the  plaintiff  Republic. 

Far  from  cherishing  a  grudge,  it  will  disappear 
along  with  the  cause  of  disturbance  in  the  relations 
between  our  respective  countries ;  and  the  one  of  them 
that  might  not  be  favored  in  the  plebiscite  would  have 
to  become  resigned  to  the  consequences  of  what  has 


385 

been  deliberately  stipulated,  with  all  the  more  reason 
as  statesmen  are  not  guided  merely  by  patriotic  senti- 
mentalism,  but  mainly  by  an  honorable  national  ex- 
pediency, in  so  far  as  it  may  not  trespass  on  the  rights 
of  others. 

It  is  because  of  these  considerations,  Mr.  Minister, 
that  when  I  became  acquainted  with  Your  Excellency 's 
plan  as  a  whole,  I  expressed,  in  our  first  interview,  as 
Your  Excellency  has  been  pleased  to  recall,  the  opin- 
ion that  to  my  Government  the  plebiscitary  protocol  is 
of  so  much  importance  that  in  comparison  with  it  all 
other  questions  assume  a  secondary  place ;  and  I  added 
that  before  requesting  instructions  for  the  discussion 
of  those  appended  conventions,  I  deemed  it  necessary 
that  we  reach  an  agreement  as  to  the  essential  one, 
that  is,  the  convention  relative  to  the  formalities  that 
are  to  guarantee  freedom  of  suffrage  and  fairness  in 
the  count  of  the  ballot. 

Since  Your  Excellency  has  reproduced  his  verbal 
exposition  in  writing,  I  reciprocate  by  reiterating  the 
reply,  in  spite  of  my  earnest  desire  to  meet  his  wishes ; 
and  I  beg  Your  Excellency  to  consent  to  a  postpone- 
ment— until  after  an  agreement  may  be  reached  con- 
cerning these  formalities — of  the  other  points  em- 
bodied, the  examination  of  which  I  pass  over  for  the 
present. 

I  ought  to  except,  however,  the  one  that  refers  to  the 
amount  of  the  indemnity  that  is  to  be  paid  to  the  other 
country  by  the  one  that  shall  acquire  definitive  sover- 
eignty in  the  territories :  an  amount  which,  instead  of 
the  ten  million  soles,  Your  Excellency  raises  to  two  or 
three  million  pounds  sterling,  that  is,  the  double  or 
triple  of  what  was  stipulated  in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon. 

In  this  respect,  it  is  necessary  that  I  should  make 
to  Your  Excellency  a  fundamental  remark.    The  meas- 


386 

ures  that  my  Government  has  intrusted  to  me  with  that 
of  Your  Excellency  have  as  their  object  the  fulfillment 
and  not  the  modification  of  Article  III  of  the  Treaty 
of  Peace  of  October  20,  1883.  With  this  in  mind,  I 
have  solicited  the  negotiation  of  the  protocol  that 
must,  according  to  the  article  mentioned,  determine 
the  form  of  the  plebiscite  and  the  terms  and  periods 
of  payment  of  the  ten  millions  by  the  country  that  it 
shall  favor.  To  attempt  to  increase  the  amount  of  the 
indemnity  fixed  by  the  Treaty  is  to  alter  it,  thus  vio- 
lating the  unity  and  correlation  that  exist  among  all 
its  clauses  and  making  more  onerous  for  Peru  the  exe- 
cution of  the  only  stipulation  pending,  after  Chile  has 
enjoyed  all  the  other  advantages. 

As  I  have  had  the  honor  to  declare  to  Your  Excel- 
lency, my  Government  would  only  depart  from  the 
provisions  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  to  assure  the  im- 
mediate and  definitive  reincorporation  of  the  Peruvian 
provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica  with  the  national  terri- 
tory. 

Peru  trusts  that  the  plebiscite  will  be  favorable  to 
her,  if  effected  according  to  the  precepts  of  its  juridi- 
cal institution,  and  I  think — may  Your  Excellency 
have  the  goodness  to  pardon  my  frankness — that  there 
also  exists  in  Chile,  as  to  that  outcome,  the  conviction, 
already  revealed  by  some  of  her  conspicuous  states- 
men, when  it  was  admitted  the  futility  of  solicitous 
efforts  at  Chileanization  made  throughout  almost  a 
quarter  of  a  century.  Otherwise,  many  of  Your  Excel- 
lency's predecessors  would  not  have  prorogued  in 
reality  the  proceeding  by  unacceptable  suggestions, 
nor  would  Your  Excellency  have  seen  fit  to  propose 
spontaneously  such  an  increase. 

Indeed,  a  pecuniary  burden  higher  than  the  one  op- 
portunely covenanted  does  not  suit  a  country  that  has 
faith  in  victory. 


387 

That  inexplicable  sum  would  be  considered  as  a  new 
sacrifice  imposed  today  by  a  war  that  terminated 
twenty-five  years  ago,  or  as  an  incentive  to  win  over 
her  representatives  in  the  plebiscitary  protocol  or  as 
concessions  that  would  be  equivalent  to  an  abandon- 
ment of  her  rights ;  that  is,  a  covert  sale  of  Tacna  and 
Arica,  in  despite  of  the  will  of  the  natives  without 
whose  consent  territorial  dismemberment  is  unlawful 
and  in  opposition  to  the  unanimous  desire  of  the  public 
sentiment  of  Peru. 

As  such  possible  hypotheses  are  erroneous,  and  as 
my  Government  descries  no  cause  for  the  modification 
of  the  Treaty  that  gave  rise  to  these  negotiations,  I 
must,  in  its  name,  declare  that  it  does  not  accept  the 
proposal  mentioned. 

As  to  the  convention  in  respect  of  the  protocol  under 
discussion,  I  can  do  no  less  than  pause,  with  the  cour- 
tesy that  Your  Excellency  will  have  the  goodness  to  rec- 
ognize, over  the  examination  of  the  three  points  that 
refer  to  the  disguised  cession  and  the  chairmanship  or 
management  of  the  plebiscite  and  voters,  to  which 
Your  Excellency  confines  himself. 


Your  Excellency  supposes  that,  according  to  modern 
precedents,  the  plebiscite  incorporated  in  the  history 
of  international  law  constitutes  a  formula  for  dis- 
guised cession. 

That  objection,  argued  verbally  by  Your  Excellency, 
is  very  new  in  the  numerous  conferences  to  which  the 
third  Clause  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  has  given  rise  in 
the  past. 

In  ancient  legislation,  the  substantial  and  character- 
istic element  of  the  plebiscite  consisted  of  the  popular 
will  as  an  expression  of  sovereignty. 


388 

In  the  light  of  the  principle  of  freedom,  the  French 
Eevolution  of  1789  condemned  the  conquest  imposed 
by  arms  and  reestablished  that  democratic  practice  as 
the  only  justifiable  basis  of  changes  in  the  existence  of 
states. 

Thus  transferred  to  the  international  realm,  the 
plebiscites  in  favor  of  France,  from  the  one  that  took 
place  in  Avignon  in  1791,  or  in  favor  of  Italian  unity 
in  1848,  and  all  the  others  invariably  invoked,  as  a 
juridical  basis  and  title,  the  consultation  of  the  people. 

In  practice,  mockery  was  not  infrequently  the  result, 
nor  did  the  vote  cast  escape  the  effect  of  brutal  coer- 
cion and  fraudulent  trickery:  hence  the  repeated  tri- 
umph of  the  annexationist. 

Extortion,  however,  is  not  a  legal  factor,  but  a  nulli- 
fying cause.    . 

The  historical  precedents  in  which  it  was  exercised 
demonstrate  that,  in  order  to  obtain  an  apparent  suc- 
cess, concerted  in  advance,  there  were  abuses,  just  as 
there  are  at  times  in  local  elections;  but  just  as  the 
latter  are  not  invoked  to  make  legitimate  the  abuses  of 
internal  politics,  so  neither  may  it  be  deduced  from  the 
former  that  in  the  sphere  of  public  law  is  the  plebi- 
scite of  a  free  character  vitiated  in  order  to  become  the 
cloak  of  the  dimetrically  antagonistic  conception  of 
conquest;  and  that,  consequently,  this  may  be  the  one 
that  always  stands  out  as  consummated  in  all  the  docu- 
ments that  mention  the  popular  will  as  a  condition  of 
transfer. 

In  Article  II  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  Peru  cedes  to 
Chile,  perpetually  and  unconditionally,  the  territory 
of  Tarapaca. 

As  to  Tacna  and  Arica,  Article  III  stipulates  that, 
on  the  expiration  of  the  period  of  ten  years  of  Chilean 
administration,  a  plebiscite  would  decide,  by  popular 


389 

vote,  whether  the  territory  of  the  provinces  mentioned 
should  remain  definitively  under  the  dominion  and 
sovereignty  of  Chile  or  whether  they  should  continue 
to  be  a  part  of  the  Peruvian  territory. 

If  the  negotiators  of  Ancon  had  imposed  the  same 
fate  on  the  towns  of  Tacna,  Arica  and  Tarapaca,  they 
would  not  have  agreed,  in  respect  of  the  first  two,  on 
the  popular  vote  that  they  cast  in  respect  of  the  last 
mentioned. 

Hence  it  was  not  to  simulate  respect  for  the  princi- 
ple of  liberty  proclaimed  by  the  French  Revolution, 
but  to  attach  to  words  their  only  clear  meaning  that 
Chile  agreed,  pledging  her  national  faith,  on  the  plebi- 
scite of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

From  the  time  of  the  reestablishment  of  that  institu- 
tion by  the  National  Assembly,  the  more  or  less  genu- 
ine expression  of  the  popular  will  in  favor  of  annexa- 
tion is  exhibited  more  frequently  by  an  absolute  disre- 
gard of  the  repudiated  sovereign,  on  the  initiative  of 
insurrectionary  governments  or  of  the  military  occu- 
pant. 

Such  cases  do  not  serve  as  antecedents  analogous 
to  the  bilateral  Treaty  of  Ancon. 

The  cedent  nation  has  stipulated  the  plebiscite 
save  on  four  occasions : 

In  the  Treaty  of  Turin  of  March,  1860,  between  Sar- 
dinia and  France,  in  respect  of  Nice  and  Savoy. 

In  that  of  Prague  of  August,  1866,  between  Prussia 
and  Austria,  in  respect  of  the  towns  of  the  northern 
districts  of  Schleswig. 

In  that  of  the  aforementioned  Treaty  of  Prague, 
completed  in  Vienna  on  the  following  day,  between 
Austria  and  France,  and  then,  in  October  of  the  same 
year,  between  Austria  and  Italy,  with  reference  to  the 
Lombardo-Venetian  kingdom. 


390 

In  that  of  Paris  of  August,  1887,  between  Sweden 
and  France,  in  regard  to  returning  the  Island  of  St. 
Bartholomew. 

In  the  Treaty  of  Turin,  before  deferring  to  the  will 
of  the  towns,  the  King  of  Sardinia  declared  that  he : 

"consents  to  the  annexation  of  Savoy  and  of 
the  arrondissement  of  Nice  to  France  and  re- 
nounces, for  himself  and  all  his  descendants  and 
successors,  in  favor  of  His  Majesty  the  Emperor 
of  the  French,  his  rights  and  titles  over  the  said 
territories." 

In  the  Treaty  of  Prague,  the  Emperor  of  Austria 
also  renounced  in  favor  of  Prussia  his  sovereignty 
over  the  northern  part  of  Schleswig;  the  plebiscite 
agreed  on  in  Article  V,  which  was  abrogated  by  the 
contracting  powers  in  1878,  foresaw,  indeed,  the  con- 
tingency of  the  votes  of  the  natives,  not  in  behalf  of  the 
cedent  or  of  the  cessionary,  but  of  reincorporation 
with  Denmark. 

In  the  Treaty  of  Vienna,  "with  the  reservation  of 
the  consent  of  the  populations,  duly  consulted,"  es- 
tablished by  Napoleon  III,  who  had  accepted  the  ces- 
sion in  order  to  transfer  it  to  Italy  as  was  agreed  in 
that  of  Prague,  the  Austrian  cedent  Emperor  himself 
"consents  to  the  union  of  the  Lombardo-Venetian 
Kingdom  to  the  Kingdom  of  Italy. ' ' 

Finally,  in  the  Treaty  of  Paris,  also  with  the  reser- 
vation as  to  the  consent  of  the  population,  "the  King 
of  Sweden  and  Norway  returns  to  France  the  island  of 
Saint  Bartholomew  and  renounces,  in  consequence,  for 
himself  and  his  descendants  and  successors,  his  rights 
and  titles  over  the  said  colony." 

In  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  Peru  does  not  renounce — 
like  the  sovereigns  in  the  aforementioned  treaties — 
her  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 


391 

On  the  contrary,  she  made  clear  her  desire  to  suffer 
no  further  mutilation,  since  she  not  only  made  "the 
form  in  which  the  plebiscite  was  to  be  effected"  de- 
pendent on  "an  especial  protocol  that  will  be  con- 
sidered an  integral  part  of  the  Treaty,"  but  she  obli- 
gated herself,  like  the  Chilean  Government,  for  the  de- 
livery of  ten  million  soles  in  case  the  suffrage  should  be 
in  her  favor,  that  is,  for  a  charge  probatory  of  her 
expectation,  which  is  not  to  be  found  in  any.  of  the  four 
Treaties  recalled. 

The  populations  of  Nice  and  Savoy  and  Saint 
Bartholomew,  and  also  those  of  Venice,  were  more 
closely  united  to  France  and  Italy,  respectively,  than 
to  Sardinia,  Sweden  and  Austria,  by  historical  ties 
more  or  less  potent.  Those  of  Tacna  and  Arica  are  of 
a  purely  Peruvian  nationality;  over  those  provinces 
Chile  never  adduced  or  claimed  any  right  whatsoever. 

The  plebiscite  in  Nice  and  Savoy  was  effected  in 
April,  1860;  in  Venice,  in  October,  1866;  in  Saint 
Bartholomew,  during  the  last  days  of  September  and 
the  first  of  October,  1877;  that  is,  a  few  weeks  after 
the  Treaties  of  March,  1860,  October,  1866,  and  August, 
1877,  which  respectively  stipulated  them.  That  of 
Tacna  and  Arica  had  a  compulsory  period  of  ten  years ; 
it  was  not  effected  immediately  after  the  Treaty,  as 
would  have  occurred  in  1883,  if,  in  truth,  Chile  had  im- 
posed it,  and  Peru  had  resigned  herself  to  accepting 
it  as  a  formula,  in  consequence  of  the  war,  as  a  means 
of  acquiring  those  territories  at  all  costs. 

There  exists  then  no  parity  between  the  Treaty  of 
Ancon  and  the  European  Treaties  erroneously  cited  as 
antecedents. 

To  its  negotiators,  then,  the  clause  relative  to  the 
decision  of  the  popular  will  was  not  equivalent  to  a 
dead  letter. 


The  earlier  negotiations  substantiate  this  assertion. 

Such  were  those  of  October,  1880,  on  board  the 
American  corvette  Lackawanna,  in  which  the  Chilean 
plenipotentiaries  sought,  among  other  demands  of 
minor  importance  the  cession  of  the  territories  south 
of  the  Camarones  Ravine,  the  payment  of  twenty  mil- 
lion pesos  by  Peru  and  Bolivia  jointly  and  "the  re- 
tention of  Moquegua,  Tacna  and  Arica  until  the  dis- 
charge of  the  obligations  to  which  the  previous  condi- 
tions referred,  besides  binding  Peru  not  to  fortify  the 
port  of  Arica  when  it  should  be  delivered  to  her  nor  at 
any  time;"  demands  that  gave  rise  to  the  Balmaceda- 
Trescot  Protocol,  signed  on  Feburary  11, 1882,  at  Vina 
del  Mar,  in  which  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Rela- 
tions indicated  as  a  basis  of  peace  (not  accepted  by  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  in  order  to  prof er  its 
good  offices)  the  same  cession  of  the  south  of  Cama- 
rones, the  payment  of  twenty  million  pesos  and  the 
occupation  of  Tacna  and  Arica  for  ten  years,  or  for  the 
longest  time  "that  Peru  would  set  in  the  Treaty,' '  with 
the  charge  that  if,  on  the  expiration  of  the  stipulated 
period,  she  should  not  pay  this  sum,  "the  territory  of 
Tacna  and  Arica  would  be  ceded  ipso  facto/'  and  that 
"if  Arica  should  return  to  the  dominion  of  Peru,  it 
would  remain  unfortified  for  ever ; ' '  those  in  which  Mr. 
Logan  intervened,  in  which,  as  is  set  forth  in  the  memo- 
randum of  October  18,  1883,  the  Chilean  Chancellor 
suggested  the  idea — rejected  by  the  President  [of 
Peru],  Seiior  Calderon — of  the  plebiscitary  act,  avow- 
ing that  "he  was  disposed  to  pay  ten  million  pesos  for 
the  territory,  if  the  plebiscite  delivered  it  to  Chile,  and 
that  he  expected  to  receive,  in  turn,  ten  million  pesos, 
if  the  plebiscite  awarded  it  to  Peru;"  and  he  agreed 
that  an  arbitrator  should  decide  whether  Chile  had  a 
right  to  buy  the  territory  of  Tacna  and  Arica  or 


393 

whether  she  ought  "to  occupy  militarily  said  territory 
for  the  period  of  fifteen  years,  being  under  obligation 
to  evacuate  it  at  the  expiration  of  that  period. ' ' 

These  negotiations  render  it  manifest  that  Peru  al- 
ways opposed  the  cession,  in  any  form,  of  the  terri- 
tories of  Tacna  and  Arica;  and  therefore  that,  in  ac- 
cepting plebiscitary  suffrage  in  the  Treaty  of  1883,  she 
contemplated  the  plebiscite  of  law,  according  to  the 
uniform  judgment  of  the  legal  writers  ,and  not  the 
counterfeit  of  the  popular  will  with  which  excesses 
have  sometimes  profaned  it.  Hence  both  Republics 
foresaw,  as  was  anticipated  in  the  earlier  plans,  the 
emergency  of  reincorporation  with  the  Peruvian  terri- 
tory. 

This  same  assertion  is  also  corroborated,  not  only 
by  the  declarations  made  by  Don  Jovino  Novoa,  the 
Chilean  negotiator  of  that  Treaty,  to  Sehor  Larrabure 
in  1884,  but,  £>assing  over  the  extemporaneous  and 
extra-official  ones  of  Don  Luis  Aldunate,  by  those 
enunciated  in  1883  (the  year  of  the  Treaty)  in  the 
memorial  of  that  functionary,  in  his  capacity  as  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Relations. 

It  was  because  it  was  not  a  disguised  cession  that, 
on  August  10,  1892— that  is  before  March  28,  1894,  on 
which  date  the  covenanted  decade  expired — Senor 
Larrabure  invited  the  Plenipotentiary,  Senor  Vial 
Solar,  to  elaborate  a  plebiscitary  protocol;  and  the 
conferences,  at  first  verbal,  continued  for  an  extended 
period  of  years,  sometimes  in  the  same  manner,  some- 
times in  writing,  both  in  Lima,  with  representatives 
of  Chile,  and  in  Santiago,  with  the  many  statesmen 
that  succeeded  one  another  in  La  Moneda,1  although 
not  one  of  them  ever  overcame  the  inconsistency  of 
these  undertakings. 


i  The  National  Executive  Mansion  of  Chile. — The  translator. 


394 

On  the  contrary,  foreseeing  the  possible  triumph  of 
Peru  in  the  plebiscite,  Senor  Lira  asked  for  guaranties 
of  the  payment  of  the  indemnity;  and  the  Government 
of  Chile  upheld  its  proposal,  always  rejected,  as  to  the 
increase  on  its  part,  by  some  millions  of  the  ten  millions 
indicated,  in  case  the  Treaty  were  modified  and  an 
agreement  should  be  reached  as  to  the  definitive  ces- 
sion. 

In  the  first  Clause  of  the  Chilean-Bolivian  Treaty  of 
May  18,  1895,  as  to  transfer  of  territories,  Chile  obli- 
gates herself  to  cede  to  Bolivia  those  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  "if  she  should  acquire  them  as  a  consequence 
of  the  plebiscite  that  is  to  be  held  in  conformity  with 
the  Treaty  of  Ancon;"  in  the  third  Clause  "she  en- 
gages to  use  all  her  endeavors  to  obtain  in  definitive 
ownership"  the  said  territories;  and  in  the  fourth 
Clause  she  enters  into  a  subsidiary  engagement  in  case 
' '  she  might  not  be  able  to  obtain  in  the  plebiscite  or  by 
direct  arrangements  definitive  sovereignty  in  the  zone 
in  which  are  situated  the  cities  of  Tacna  and  Arica. ' p 

It  is  obvious  that  when  the  agreement  was  made  as 
to  abandonment,  Chile  did  not  have  in  view — as  she 
had  in  this  Treaty  of  1895  and  in  the  additional  and 
explanatory  protocols  of  December  9  of  the  same  year 
and  of  April  30, 1896 — the  possibility  of  a  vote  in  favor 
of  Peru. 

Therefore,  in  ratification  of  the  earlier  declarations, 
the  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile  asserted, 
in  his  Memorial  of  1894,  that  the  Treaty  of  October  20 
"has  deferred  to  a  later  treaty,  consecrated  by  a 
solemn  treaty,  and  of  absolutely  uncertain  results,  the 
adjudication  of  the  dominion  of  those  territories." 

In  his  Message  of  1900,  the  President  Sehor  Erra- 
zuriz,  said,  on  his  part,  that  "in  the  Treaty  of  Peace 
the  definitive  nationality  of  the  territories  of  Tacna 
and  Arica  remained  undecided.' 9 


395 

Hence  also  the  same  Senor  Errazuriz  respected  the 
international  engagement  in  the  Billinghurst-Latorre 
Protocol  sanctioned  by  the  Senate ;  and  after  approv- 
ing it  as  a  whole,  he  left  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  in 
suspense,  not  because  that  document  rescinded  any 
convention,  but  in  order  that  the  Executive  Power 
might  take  new  diplomatic  steps  to  carry  into  effect  the 
third  Clause  of  the  Treaty,  which  stipulates  the  plebi- 
scite by  popular  vote. 

The  deduction  as  to  a  simulated  cession  or  conquest 
of  the  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica — drawn,  not  from 
the  text  or  the  spirit  of  that  Treaty,  but  from  irrelevant 
European  plebiscites — ought  therefore  to  be  rejected 
absolutely. 

It  is  not  true,  either,  Mr.  Minister,  that  to  Your  Ex- 
cellency's Government  belongs  exclusively  the  right  to 
designate  the  personnel  that  is  to  preside  over  the 
plebiscitary  act,  whether  in  the  registration  of  the 
electors,  in  the  taking  of  the  vote  or  in  the  announce- 
ment of  the  result. 

What  is  the  title  of  sovereignty  that  is  alleged  by 
Chile  today  in  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica! 

It  is  certainly  not  that  of  occupation,  which  the  law 
authorizes  only  in  respect  of  res  nullius. 

Nor  is  it  that  of  sanguinary  military  assault  during 
the  war  terminated  by  the  Treaty  of  1883,  in  fulfillment 
of  which  the  army  evacuated  the  invaded  region,  with 
two  exceptions :  one  of  them  in  the  case  of  Tarapaca, 
and  the  other  in  that  of  the  provinces  mentioned. 

The  claim  invoked  depends  therefore  on  this  Treaty 
alone. 

Its  text  ordains,  in  the  third  Clause,  that  the  terri- 
tory of  the  last  mentioned  "  shall  continue  to  be  pos- 
sessed by  Chile  and  subject  to  Chilean  legislation  and 
authorities  during  the  period  of  ten  years,  reckoned 


896 

from  the  ratification  of  the  present  Treaty  of  Peace. ' ' 

The  exchange  of  ratifications  took  place  on  March 
28,  1884. 

The  decade  expired,  consequently,  on  the  same  date 
in  1894 ;  and  Peru  then  juridically  recovered  her  entire 
ownership,  in  part  suspended. 

Therefore  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations,  Senor 
Jimenez,  reminded  the  Chilean  Plenipotentiary  in 
Lima  in  June,.  1893,  of  the  timeliness  of  the  restoration 
of  the  provinces  temporarily  occupied.  Then,  on  en- 
countering opposition,  he  proposed  that  the  solution 
of  the  case  be  submitted  to  the  decision  of  a  friendly 
Government ;  and  later,  on  the  eve  of  the  expiration  of 
the  period,  the  Peruvian  Plenipotentiary  in  Santiago, 
Senor  Ribeyro,  again  called  attention  to  the  fact  that 
Chile  had  no  right  to  occupy  those  provinces  after 
March  28,  1894. 

This  affirmation  is  in  perfect  accord  with  the  spirit 
and  letter  of  the  Treaty. 

The  aforementioned  third  Clause  adds,  following  the 
phrases  already  transcribed:  " After  the  expiration  of 
this  period  (that  is  ten  years),  a  plebiscite  will  decide, 
by  popular  vote. ' ' 

It  was  therefore  after  the  expiration  of  the  decade — 
not  during  it — that  the  act  was  to  take  place. 

It  is  natural,  indeed,  that  the  pople  should  be  left  in 
freedom  from  coercion — people  in  whose  midst, 
throughout  that  decennial  period,  the  authorities,  car- 
ried away  by  a  mistaken  zeal,  attempted  to  exercise 
that  coercion  in  favor  of  their  own, nation,  instead  of 
making  an  effort  to  render  the  administrative  regime 
of  the  occupying  country  more  acceptable. 

The  expiration  of  the  period  causes  the  expiration  of 
the  conventional  right  for  the  subsistence  of  which  it 
was  stipulated. 


397 

The  period  concluded,  the  precarious  sovereignty  of 
Chile  in  the  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica  ceased 
therefore,  in  the  light  of  principles. 

Possession  for  a  categorically  peremptory  time  is 
not  prolonged  or  rendered  indefinite  by  the  mere  will 
of  the  party  that  enjoys  it  in  spite  of  the  protests  of 
the  other  contracting  party. 

For  this  reason,  doubtless,  the  distinguished  prede- 
cessor of  Your  Excellency,  Don  Mariano  Sanchez 
Fontecilla,  proposed  to  Senor  Ribeyro,  among  other 
points,  the  following:  "The  period  of  the  ten  years, 
accorded  in  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  is  pro- 
rogued until  March  28,  1898. 

As  the  prorogation  has  not  been  secured,  Your  Ex- 
cellency's Government  ought  then  to  return  the  Peru- 
vian territories,  out  of  respect  for  the  aphorism  of 
universal  legislation,  according  to  which,  on  the  ex- 
piration of  the  period  of  temporary  tenancy,  the  direct 
owner  of  a  thing  wholly  recovers  his  dominion. 

It  is  only  for  the  purpose  of  achieving  the  end  and  of 
preventing  distrust  that,  as  a  consequence  of  Chile's 
negative,  Senor  Jimenez  thought,  as  a  method  of  com- 
promise, of  the  delivery  of  the  provinces  to  a  third 
power  designated  by  common  consent,  in  order  that 
the  act  might  be  accomplished  under  its  auspices  and 
they  might  be  handed  over  without  delay  to  the  favored 
one  according  to  the  result. 

If  such  an  equitable  proposal  had  become  practica- 
ble, the  advantages  of  propaganda  disappearing  with 
possession  and  postponement  being  now  objectless, 
the  obstacles  would  have  been  readily  overcome  and 
there  would  have  existed  no  subsequent  grounds  for 
discomfort. 

Not  even  the  diplomatic  antecedents  to  which  Your 
Excellency   alludes   show  that  plebiscites   have  been 


398 

effected  under  the  exclusive  direction  of  the  State  in 
whose  favor  the  vote  resulted. 

The  plebiscites  of  1860  in  favor  of  France  were  held, 
according  to  the  official  documents,  under  the  presi- 
dency of  the  authorities  appointed  by  the  cedent  King 
of  Sardinia. 

In  the  proclamation  of  that  monarch  to  the  popula- 
tions of  Savoy  and  Nice,  he  said  to  them,  in  effect: 
' '  That  nothing  may  hinder  the  free  expression  of  your 
votes,  I  recall  the  principal  functionaries  of  the  ad- 
ministrative class  that  do  not  belong  to  your  country 
and  I  replace  them  temporarily  by  several  of  your  fel- 
low-citizens that  enjoy  general  esteem  and  considera- 
tion.' '  The  said  new  functionaries  published  each  of 
them  in  his  own  locality,  the  regulations  in  which 
municipal  boards  were  instructed  to  make  up  the  list 
of  citizens  with  a  right  to  vote,  settle  complaints,  et 
cetera. 

The  plebiscite  of  1866  in  favor  of  Italy  was  held  ac- 
cording to  the  regulations  issued  by  the  annexing 
sovereign,  but  under  the  presidency  of  the  municipali- 
ties composed  exclusively  of  natives. 

It  is  true  that  the  French  commissary,  General  Le- 
boeuf ,  received  Venice  and  delivered  her  to  a  commit- 
tee of  notables,  presided  over  by  Count  Michiel.  Victor 
Emmanuel  then  rendered  the  proceeding  regular  by 
providing  that  the  municipal  representatives  of  the 
provinces  freed  of  the  Austrian  occupation  should  en- 
act "all  the  proper  measures  to  assure  the  freedom  and 
solemnity  of  the  expression  of  universal  suffrage." 

The  plebiscite  of  1877,  which  resulted  in  favor  of 
France,  was  effected  under  the  presidency  of  the  cedent 
King  of  Sweden,  who  ordered  the  Governor  of  the  Is- 
land of  Saint  Bartholomew  "to  make  proper  arrange- 
ments for  the  ballot"  by  establishing  the  regulations 
that  were  to  be  followed. 


399 

The  only  analogy  of  those  precedents  is  in  the 
modus  operandi  in  respect  of  natives  of  the  locality 
subject  to  a  plebiscite;  hence,  if  they  were  to  be  imi- 
tated, only  citizens  of  the  two  provinces  would  partici- 
pate in  that  of  Tacna  and  Arica  in  the  capacity  of 
functionaires. 

In  respect  of  presiding,  however,  the  examples  are 
dissimilar. 

Inasmuch  as  the  renunciation  on  the  part  of  the 
cedent  sovereign  was  absolute  and  explicit,  for  himself, 
his  descendants  and  successors  (an  essential  point  con- 
trary to  the  Treaty  of  Ancon),  it  would  have  been  con- 
ceivable that  he  might  have  left  the  annexationist  in 
complete  liberty.  Nevertheless,  in  two  cases  out  of 
three,  it  was  the  cedent  who  always  assumed,  according 
to  the  official  documents  referred  to,  the  higher  direc- 
tion of  the  act. 

I  have  had  the  honor  to  prove  that  the  continuance 
of  the  Chilean  authorities  in  the  territories  of  Tacna 
and  Arica,  after  March  28,  1894,  was  clearly  illegal, 

Rights  are  not  derived  from  what  is  unlawful. 

Hence  the  right  of  sovereignty  to  preside  over  me 
act,  which  Chile  has  never  possessed,  does  not  exist, 
much  less  to  supervise  it  without  control,  registering 
the  electors,  receiving  the  votes  in  favor  of  or  against 
her  aspirations,  counting  the  ballot  and  proclaiming  it. 

Your  Excellency  has  seen  fit  to  say  in  advance  to  me 
that  you  "see  no  reason  why  our  authorities,  in  making 
up  the  election  boards,  should  not  grant  representation 
to  citizens  of  Peruvian  nationality  and  to  citizens  of 
other  nationalities." 

The  latter  could  only  be  impartial  persons  desig- 
nated by  our  respective  Governments,  by  common  con- 
sent, to  preside  over  the  electoral  act. 


400 

My  Government,  which,  in  truth,  shares  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  sovereignty  in  the  captive  provinces — and  it 
does  not  invoke  the  fact  to  claim  the  simultaneous 
role  of  judge  and  litigant — does  not  accept,  Mr.  Min- 
ister, except  in  the  form  of  a  gracious  concession,  the 
petty,  belittling  act,  which,  in  view  of  the  amicable  and 
conciliatory  spirit  of  our  communications,  the  under- 
signed would  have  desired  that  Your  Excellency  should 
abstain  from  mentioning. 

Although  the  sincere  promises  of  impartiality  that 
Your  Excellency  is  pleased  to  reiterate  do  not  awaken 
doubts,  I  have  the  honor  to  remind  you  that  expecta- 
tions regarding  Tacna  and  Arica  exist  not  only  in 
Chile,  but  also  in  Peru;  therefore,  according  to  the 
fundamental  precepts  of  justice,  the  only  logical  deduc- 
tion of  that  right,  in  principle  equal,  is  that  the  two  Re- 
publics should  have  an  identical  share  and  positive, 
identical  assurances,  in  order  that  the  plebiscite  may 
express,  with  the  testimony  of  both,  the  verdict  of  the 
people. 

This  was  the  basis  accorded  in  the  Billinghurst-La- 
torre  Protocol. 

III. 

Permit  me  now,  Your  Excellency,  to  show  that  the 
right  of  sovereignty  belongs  to  the  natives  alone. 

Until  foreigners  shall  become  nationalized,  they 
retain  their  juridical  character  of  foreigners.  In- 
asmuch as  they  do  not  loose  the  bonds  of  their  own 
sovereignty,  nor  acquire  those  of  another,  they  are  de- 
prived of  political  rights  in  the  place  of  their  resi- 
dence; and  when  a  transfer  of  territory  occurs,  with- 
out their  being  required  to  make  any  declaration,  their 
personal  status  remains  unchanged. 

The  plebiscitary  vote  in  the  present  case  is  of  a  very 
peculiar  character ;  it  not  only  makes  effective  the  par- 


401 

ticipation  of  the  citizen  in  the  management  of  public 
affairs,  but  particularly  in  the  choice  of  a  definite 
sovereignty  for  the  territory.  Its  political  character 
alone  would  be  sufficient  to  exclude  from  it  all  foreign- 
ers, without  exception,  since  constitutional  science 
dogmatically  deprives  them  of  that  right  everywhere. 

If  suffrage  is  of  such  a  nature  that  its  exercise  may 
not  be  granted  to  the  other  citizens  of  the  interested 
countries,  much  less  is  it  feasible  to  claim  that  it  should 
be  granted  as  a  privilege  to  foreigners.  Tacna  and 
Arica  are  Peruvian  provinces;  and,  although  citizens 
of  Peru,  not  born  in  them,  would  be  denied  the  vote,  the 
citizens  or  subjects  of  other  nations  would  have  a  right 
to  it,  they — that  is,  those  who,  juridically,  it  ought  to 
be  supposed,  have  no  interest  in  the  act — being  thus  in 
a  more  advantageous  political  position  than  that  of 
such  Peruvian  citizens.  Your  Excellency's  enlightened 
judgment  will  spare  me  the  necessity  of  pointing  out 
the  absurdity  of  such  a  conclusion. 

If  the  plebiscite  is  an  exclusive  right  of  sovereignty, 
and  if  foreigners  are  not  affected  by  its  outcome,  it  is 
obvious  that  nothing  would  justify  the  intrusion  of 
those  guests  in  this  act  of  transcendental  consequence 
only  to  the  political  collectivity  of  which  they  do  not 
form  a  part. 

To  grant  them  the  vote  is  to  attribute  to  them  con- 
dominion,  equally  with  the  owners,  over  a  territory  in 
which  they  temporarily  reside;  seigniory  over  those 
that  offered  them  hospitality,  to  the  extreme  of  decid- 
ing as  to  their  future,  thus  wounding  the  sacred  love 
of  the  country ;  is  to  authorize  them,  by  thus  influenc- 
ing the  dispossession  and  denationalization  of  the 
native,  to  violate  neutrality,  which,  in  every  interna- 
tional dispute,  is  imposed  upon  them  by  the  most  ele- 
mental rules  of  law. 


402 

Doctor  Don  Alejandro  Alvarez,  the  technical  Coun- 
selor of  the  Ministry  today  under  the  charge  of  Your 
Excellency,  says  in  one  of  his  publications,  referring 
to  the  foreigners  domiciled  in  Tacna  and  Arica: 

' '  It  is  a  fundamental  principle  of  the  law  of  na- 
tions and  of  the  constitutional  law  of  all  the  coun- 
tries that  in  a  foreign  country  the  foreigner  pos- 
sesses no  political  right;  and  the  vote  as  to  which 
of  the  two  contending  countries  ought  to  be- 
long a  portion  of  territory  that  is  now  mili- 
tarily occupied  by  one  of  them  is  the  highest 
expression  of  a  political  right,  from  an  inter- 
national point  of  view.  Besides  this  reason, 
which  is  fundamental,  it  would  be  proper  to  in- 
quire as  to  why  foreigners  ought  to  have  the  right 
to  vote  on  the  question  of  the  annexation  of  one 
territory  to  another.  Because  they  have  property 
in  those  territories?  This  interest  gives  them  the 
right  to  ask  that  their  property  shall  be  respected, 
and  nothing  more ;  and  from  the  moment  in  which 
their  property  is  respected,  they  can  claim  no 
right  to  contribute  by  their  suffrage  to  the  settle- 
ment of  a  question  in  respect  of  which  they,  as 
foreigners,  ought  to  have  been  and  ought  to  re- 
main foreign. ' ' 

The  fact  of  being  a  Chilean  is  not  an  exceptional 
cause  that  justifies  the  vote. 

In  his  Memorial  to  the  Congress  of  1883,  just  follow- 
ing the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  after  explaining  the  influence 
that  would  be  exerted  by  the  transitory  administration 
of  Chile  on  the  plebiscite,  the  eminent  statesman,  Don 
Luis  Aldunate,  added : 

"if  all  these  causes  should  induce  the  inhabitants 
of  the  region  of  Tacna  and  Arica  to  decide  in  favor 
of  Chilean  nationality,  on  this  hypothesis,  which 
ought  perhaps  to  be  deemed  the  most  probable,  the 


403 

assimilation  of  our  new  fellow-citizens  would  be 
exerted  in  advance,  without  violence  or  upheavals 
and  without  demanding  anything  more  than  a 
simple  rectification  of  the  geographical  map  of 
Chile." 

Those  ideas  of  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations, 
who  was  in  Lima  in  the  capacity  of  a  delegate  of  the 
Santiago  Government,  in  order  to  promote  the  ar- 
rangements for  peace,  prove  that  voters  induced  to 
" decide  in  favor  of  Chilean  nationality, ' '  the  "new 
fellow-citizens/ '  were  not  sons  of  the  occupying  Re- 
public, but  Peruvians  whose  "assimilation"  was  as- 
sumed as  a  consequence  of  a  good  administrative 
regime  in  the  provinces  retained. 

Chilean  citizens  resident  in  the  two  provinces  are  as 
much  foreigners  in  them  as  others. 

Without  rights  under  Peruvian  sovereignty,  without 
the  outcome  of  the  plebiscites  affecting  their  personal 
status,  the  circumstance  of  their  votes  weighing  in 
favor  of  Chile,  not,  indeed,  as  a  violation  of  neutrality, 
but  as  an  effective  contribution  to  the  act  of  conquest, 
renders  their  disability  even  more  evident. 

The  third  Clause  of  the  Treaty  provides  that  after 
the  expiration  of  the  period  of  ten  years  "a  plebiscite 
will  decide  by  popular  vote ' '  whether  the  territories  of 
Tacna  and  Arica  shall  remain  definitively  under  the 
dominion  and  sovereignty  of  Chile  or  whether  it  shall 
continue  to  be  a  part  of  the  Peruvian  territory. 

Your  Excellency  deigns  to  suppose  that  the  "popu- 
lar vote"  required  is  that  of  all  the  residents,  including 
that  of  foreigners  that  have  established  their  interests 
and  have  brought  up  families  in  the  localities,  to  the 
prosperity  of  which  they  have  contributed  to  a  very 
considerable  degree  by  their  persevering  and  produc- 
tive labor. 


404 

If  the  consequence  deduced  from  the  last  assertion 
were  correct,  it  would  be  sufficient,  to  serve  as  a  basis 
for  the  recognition  of  their  political  rights. 

However,  this  theory  is  an  infringement  of  Chilean 
legislation,  which  prevents  their  participation  even  in 
municipal  affairs. 

In  the  case  of  the  foreign  resident,  it  is  fair  to  as- 
sume instability:  the  desire  to  return  to  the  country 
with  which  he  has  not  severed  his  ties,  together  with 
the  new  family  and  the  fortune  acquired  abroad. 

For  this  reason  it  is  not  improper  to  assume  that,  in 
the  event  of  a  plebiscitary  conflict,  indolence  would  in- 
cline him  to  tranquillity  at  all  costs. 

Those  that  truly  desire,  whatsoever  their  place  of 
domicile,  in  addition  to  peace,  both  the  present  and  the 
future  welfare  of  the  region  are  the  natives  themselves, 
who  in  its  defense,  from  a  sense  of  obligation  and  pa- 
triotism, sacrifice  their  property,  their  families  and 
their  lives. 

According  to  Article  I  of  the  Constitution  of  Chile, 
the  Government  of  that  country  is  u popular.' ' 

It  qualifies  the  Government  because  the  choice  of  it 
devolves,  not  on  all  the  inhabitants — German,  British, 
et  cetera — but  on  the  citizens,  that  is,  the  Chilean 
people. 

In  corroboration  of  what  has  been  set  forth,  the  text 
defines  the  scope  of  the  qualifications  in  the  realm  of 
law. 

There  is  no  reason  why  it  should  vary  in  interna- 
tional law,  especially  in  the  branch  of  it  that  refers  to 
the  plebiscite,  since  the  institution  is  founded — I  must 
excuse  myself  for  reiterating  it — on  sovereignty,  that 
is,  the  people,  who  exclusively  constitute  the  nation. 

This  is  the  teaching  of  the  writers  on  the  subject. 

It  is  also  substantiated  by  the  diplomatic  antece- 
dents invoked  by  Your  Excellency. 


405 

In  the  Treaty  of  Turin  it  was  stipulated  that  in  re- 
spect of  the  transfer  "the  will  of  the  populations" 
should  be  considered.  The  regulations  for  the  plebiscite 
in  Nice  provided  in  Article  IV:  "All  those  citizens  of 
the  age  of  twenty-one  years,  at  least,  who  by  birth  or 
origin,  belong  to  the  county  of  Nice,  shall  be  qualified  to 
vote;"  and  for  the  act  in  Savoy  they  provided,  also  in 
Article  IV:  "The  vote  shall  be  given  to  all  citizens,  of 
not  less  than  twenty-one  years  of  age,  born  in  Savoy, 
or  of  Savoyard  parents  out  of  Savoy,  that  live  in  the 
commune. ' y 

In  the  Treaty  of  Vienna  also,  the  transfer  was  stipu- 
lated with  the  reservation  of  the  "consent  of  the  popu- 
lations duly  consulted."  The  regulations  for  the  plebi- 
scite "in  the  Italian  provinces  liberated  from  the 
Austrian  occupation ' '  provided,  in  Article  V :  "On  the 
days  designated  for  the  casting  of  the  vote,  all  the 
Italians  of  the  said  provinces  that  shall  be  twenty-one 
years  of  age. ' ' 

In  the  Treaty  of  Paris  also,  the  transfer  was  stipu- 
lated "with  the  express  reservation  of  the  consent  of 
the  people  of  Saint  Bartholomew,"  and  the  King  of 
Sweden  provided  that  "every  man  of  the  population  of 
the  island,  in  the  enjoyment  of  his  civil  rights,  who  had 
reached  his  majority,  may  take  part  in  the  plebiscite.'* 
An  explanation  was  deemed  necessary,  and  it  was 
given  thus  by  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  the 
cedent  monarch:  "the  meaning  is,  naturally,  that 
Swedish  subjects  alone  might  vote." 

In  all  those  regulations,  consonant  with  treaties  that 
stipulate  the  consent  of  the  peoples  or  populations, 
natives  are  always  mentioned,  and  never  foreigners  or 
the  citizens  of  the  presumptive  annexationist. 

The  analagous  formula  of  "popular  vote"  employed 
in  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  may  not  then,  Mr.  Minister, 
be  interpreted  in  a  contrary  sense. 


406 

While  deploring  it,  I  have  abused  Your  Excellency's 
benevolent  courtesy. 

It  has  seemed  to  me  necessary  to  do  so  in  order  to 
make  it  clear  that  the  allegations  of  the  Government 
of  Peru  in  this  affair  are  neither  inadvised  nor  arbi- 
trary; and  in  order  that,  when  this  conviction  shall 
have  reached  the  mind  of  His  Excellency  the  President 
and  Your  Excellency,  their  rectitude  and  energy  may 
smooth  the  way  to  a  settlement.  Certain  ideas  of  the 
important  communication  to  which  I  am  replying  in- 
cline to  the  supposition,  it  should  be  said  at  once,  that 
it  is  near. 

Your  Excellency,  in  reality,  was  pleased  to  say  to 
the  undersigned : 

"Your  Honor  is  well  aware  that  the  Treaty  of 
1883,  in  leaving  to  the  resolution  of  a  plebiscite 
the  determination  of  the  definitive  nationality  of 
Tacna  and  Arica,  did  not  make  clear  what  ought 
to  be  understood  by  this  plebiscite,  nor  did  it  fix 
either  the  manner  or  the  form  of  its  execution. 
These  omissions  may  not  be  reasonably  attributed 
to  f orgetfulness  on  the  part  of  the  negotiators,  but 
to  an  implicit  recognition  that  the  procedure  stipu- 
lated could  be  no  other  than  that  of  the  plebiscites 
incorporated  in  the  history  of  international  law." 

As  the  juridical  spirit  and  consequences  of  the  plebi- 
scitary institution  are  defined  in  the  preceding  para- 
graph I  beg  to  remark  that  the  historical  procedure  to 
which  Your  Excellency  alludes  has  two  aspects. 

One  of  them  is  that  of  the  previous  regulations  of  the 
modus  operandi,  issued  by  the  authorities  in  Nice,  in 
Savoy,  in  the  Italian  provinces  and  in  the  Island  of  St. 
Bartholomew,  as  has  been  shown  in  detail. 

The  other  is — in  several  cases,  as  the  result  of  the 
compact  with  the  cedent  sovereign,  without  interest 


407 

now  in  the  population  or  populations  that  he  renounced 
explicitly  and  absolutely:  that  of  brutal  compulsion 
and  fraudulent  wiles,  in  order  to  secure,  at  all  hazards, 
the  burlesque  formula  of  the  transfer. 

I  hasten  to  recognize,  Mr.  Minister,  that  the  Govern- 
ment of  Chile  does  not  attempt  to  act  in  the  latter 
sense,  which  would  destroy  the  prestige  of  the  adminis- 
tration of  His  Excellency  Senor  Montt. 

Historical  precedents  are  limited  then  to  the  regla- 
mentarian  part,  also  observed  at  times,  of  the  plebi- 
scite. 

Hence,  if  the  negotiators  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  re- 
called them,  that  is  the  part  they  probably  had  in  mind. 

This  idea  is  substantiated  by  the  words  of  Your 
Excellency's  eminent  predecessor,  Don  Luis  Aldunate, 
in  his  memorial  of  the  same  year,  already  mentioned : 

"if  the  result  of  the  plebiscite  shall  restore  the 
territorial  region  of  Tacna  and  Arica  to  the  do- 
minion of  Peru,  it  would  be  consonant  with  the 
loyal  and  honorable  policy  of  Chile  to  respect  the 
decision  of  those  people.' ' 

I  am  pleased  to  affirm,  Mr.  Minister,  that,  from  this 
point  of  view,  which,  in  truth,  settles  the  main  difficul- 
ties, I  accept  with  unimportant  variations  Your  Excel- 
lency's opinion. 

As  Your  Excellency  has  been  pleased  to  indicate,  we 
are  in  complete  harmony  in  recognizing  the  funda- 
mental duty  of  terminating  the  situation  which,  for  so 
long  a  time,  has  disturbed  the  harmony  of  other  days. 

On  this  account  and  that  of  the  foregoing  considera- 
tions, I  beg  to  invite  Your  Excellency  to  continue  the 
conferences  until  an  agreement  be  reached  by  adapting 
to  the  disputed  clauses  of  the  Billinghurst-Latorre 
Protocol,  which  are  to  serve  as  a  basis,  the  positive 


408 

precepts  of  the  diplomatic  antecedents,  according  to 
the  principles  of  law  and  justice. 

They  are,  Mr.  Minister,  the  ones  that,  both  among 
collectivities  and  men,  mitigate  the  immoderate  sug- 
gestions of  self-interests;  strengthen  with  enduring 
ties  the  confraternity  of  states ;  and,  at  the  same  time, 
foster  in  a  harmonious  concert  the  unsullied  aggran- 
dizement of  each  of  them,  thus  satisfying  the  noble  de- 
mands of  patriotism  and  the  no  less  exalted  ones  of 
love  for  humanity  and  for  civilization. 

I  am  sure  that  if  Your  Excellency's  enlightened 
Government  takes  this  view  of  things,  it  will  not  be 
difficult,  Mr.  Minister,  to  render  tribute  to  the  spirit  of 
the  Pan  American  solidarity  that  today  prevails 
among  all  the  nations  of  our  continent  in  favor  of  a 
just  settlement  of  the  disputes  that  separate  them. 

I  am  pleased  to  reiterate  to  Your  Excellency  the  as- 
surances of  my  most  distinguished  consideration. 

G.  A.  Seoane. 

To  His  Excellency  Senor  Don  Federico  Puga  Borne, 
Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 


Presentation  Address  of  Minister  of  Chile  in  Peru  to 
President  of  Peru,  Delivered  on  August  29,  1908. 

[Translation.] 
Excellency  : 

I  take  pleasure  in  delivering  to  you  a  letter  signed 
by  the  President  of  the  Republic  of  Chile  in  which 
he  communicates  to  you  that  he  has  concluded  the 
mission  of  the  Honorable  Sr.  J.  Rafael  Balmaceda, 
and  another  letter  in  which  he  accredits  me  as  En- 
voy Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  be- 
fore the  Government  of  Your  Excellency. 


409 

In  fulfillment  of  the  mission  entrusted  to  me,  I 
take  pleasure  in  stating  to  you  and  to  the  Peruvian 
people,  through  their  illustrious  officials,  that  the  Gov- 
ernment and  people  of  Chile  wish  to  hasten  the  moment 
of  complete  cordiality,  without  clouds,  without  dis- 
trusts and  without  reticences. 

Two  roads  lay  open  before  us  to  attain  that  coveted 
object;  one  presented  difficulties  held  to  be  insuper- 
able and  consisted  in  seeking,  before  all,  a  solution 
of  the  definite  sovereignty  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna 
and  Arica ;  the  other  left  to  a  later  date  that  arduous 
enterprise  and  attempted  as  an  infallible  means  of 
concluding  it  in  an  honorable  way,  the  promotion  of 
closer  relations  between  both  countries  by  means  of 
the  celebration  of  pacts  which  would  tend  to  foster 
the  reciprocal  relations  of  our  citizens,  destined  by 
nature  and  by  a  common  historical  origin  to  proceed 
united,  not  only  through  the  life  of  one  generation, 
but  while  that  existence  lasts  to  which  only  centuries 
can  give  testimony. 

My  Government,  as  proof  of  the  friendly  spirit 
which  dominates  it,  would  be  disposed  to  consider  the 
indications  which  the  prudence  and  the  well-known  dis- 
cretion of  your  Government  would  mark  out  as  the 
most  opportune  and  the  most  certain  way  to  reach  the 
benefits  of  the  noble  peace  which  both  cherish. 

The  negotiations  initiated  at  Santiago  in  the  course 
of  the  present  year  manifested  these  aspirations  and 
seemed  to  indicate  the  possibility  of  studying  jointly 
both  problems,  without  impairing  the  rights  derived 
from  existing  covenants. 

The  sincerity  of  the  desires  of  the  Government  of 
Santiago  and  its  excellent  purposes  are  evidenced  by 
the  election  of  its  representative  before  yours,  in  ap- 
pointing for  such  a  delicate  mission  a  citizen  who  has 


410 

no  other  merit  nor  means  than  the  profound  convic- 
tion that,  strengthening  the  friendship  of  our  Re- 
publics, a  most  promising  future  is  assured  for  both 
countries. 

The  lofty  benevolence  of  Your  Excellency,  to  which 
I  resort,  can  assure  the  success  of  my  mission,  en- 
gaging the  gratitude  of  the  present  generation  and 
those  to  come,  in  Chile  as  well  as  in  Peru. 

The  prosperity  of  the  Peruvian  nation  and  the  per- 
sonal happiness  of  Your  Excellency  and  of  your  Min- 
isters complete  the  total  of  the  desires  which  in  the 
name  of  His  Excellency  the  President  of  the  Republic 
of  Chile  and  in  my  own  I  take  pleasure  in  expressing 
to  Your  Excellency. 


Response  of  President  of  Peru  to  Minister  of  Chile 
in  Peru,  on  Presentation  of  Ms  Credentials,  on 
August  29,  1908. 

[Translation.] 
Mk.  Minister: 

It  is  with  great  pleasure  that  I  receive  the  letter 
sent  by  His  Excellency  the  President  of  the  Republic 
of  Chile,  in  which  he  accredits  you  as  Envoy  Extra- 
ordinary and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  to  succeed  His 
Excellency  Sr.  Balmaceda,  who  left  such  a  pleasing 
remembrance  in  this  country  because  of  his  high  merits 
and  his  distinguished  diplomatic  activities. 

The  announcement  of  which  you  are  the  messenger 
that  the  Government  and  the  people  of  Chile  entertain 
the  desire  of  attaining  perfect  cordiality  as  soon  as 
possible  between  our  respective  countries,  removing 
the  obstacles  which  still  lie  in  their  path,  is  to  find  a 
pleasing  echo  in  the  Peruvian  people.  This  high  pur- 
pose corresponds  with  the  unceasing  desire  pursued 


411 

by  Peru.  Thus  it  is  that  you  may  be  assured  of  a 
happy  conclusion  of  the  work  of  accord  which  the 
Government  of  Chile  has  deservedly  confided  to  your 
surpassing  aptitude. 

Accepting  with  pleasure  your  opportune  invitation, 
the  Chancellery  will  submit  to  you  the  means  which, 
in  its  judgment,  within  the  fulfillment .  of  the  Treaty 
of  Ancon,  which  fortunately  contemplates  the  rights 
of  both  countries,  may  lead  to  a  happy  conclusion  of 
the  work  of  peace  and  harmony  which  nature  and 
history,  the  convenience  of  the  present  and  the  clear 
prevision  of  the  future,  indicate  as  unavoidable  for 
the  Governments  of  both  countries. 

In  the  fulfillment  of  your  mission  you  -may  count 
upon  the  decided  cooperation  of  my  Government,  in 
whose  name,  as  in  my  own,  I  thank  you  for  the  wishes 
you  have  expressed  and  which  I  reciprocate  cordially 
for  the  prosperity  of  Chile,  for  the  personal  welfare 
of  the  eminent  statesmen  who  govern  her,  and  for  your 
personal  happiness. 

You  are  recognized  as  Envoy  Extraordinary  and 
Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Chile. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile  to  Minister  of 
Foreign  Relations  of  Peru. 

[Translation.] 

Santiago,  August  11, 1909. 
Mr.  Minister: 

In  the  address  with  which  he  inaugurated,  on  the 
twenty-eighth  of  last  month,  the  sessions  of  the  Na- 
tional Congress,  and  referring  to  the  question  pending 
between  our  respective  countries  as  to  the  determina- 
tion of  the  definitive  nationality  of  the  provinces  of 


412 

Tacna  and  Arica,  His  Excellency  the  President  of 
Peru,  expressed  views  which,  because  of  their  sub- 
stance, their  form  and  the  solemn  occasion  on  which 
they  were  uttered,  have,  necessarily,  attracted  the  at- 
tention of  my  Government. 

His  Excellency  the  President  of  Peru  deemed  it 
proper  to  say:  "Another  year  has  passed  without  a 
settlement  of  the  problem  that  affects  the  provinces 
of  Tacna  and  Arica,  and  we  ought  to  hope  that  the 
international  policy  of  Chile  may  at  last  take  the  direc- 
tion that  justice  designates."  He  added  later:  "The 
statesmen  of  the  neighboring  country  must  understand 
that  the  maintenance  of  their  prestige  rests  today  on 
fulfilling  faithfully  the  stipulation  of  the  Treaty  of 
Ancon,  disregarded  since  1894,  in  spite  of  our  decision 
to  carry  it  into  effect  and  of  the  persistence  with  which 
we  have  taken  steps  for  its  fulfillment. '  ' 

These  words  contain  unacceptable  ideas  that  are 
contrary  to  the  universal  practices  of  international 
courtesy  and  that  are  not  consonant  with  the  considera- 
tion due  to  the  Government  of  a  country  that  is  at  peace 
with  Peru.  Your  Excellency  will  understand  therefore 
that  it  must  justifiably  have  seemed  strange  to  my 
Government  that  His  Excellency  the  President  should 
have  expresed  those  views  on  the  occasion  of  an  offi- 
cial ceremony  that  was  attended  by  the  representative 
of  Chile,  together  with  his  colleagues  of  the  diplomatic 
corps,  expressly  invited  by  Your  Excellency. 

If  it  were  not  that  I  consider  that  the  reopening  of 
a  discussion  of  the  points  to  which  His  Excellency  the 
President  of  Peru  has  seen  fit  to  refer  in  his  address 
would  lead  to  no  useful  result,  I  could  demonstrate 
that  the  acts  of  my  Government  and  the  principles  up- 
held by  the  statesmen  of  the  Eepublic  in  respect  of 
the  problem  of  Tacna  and  Arica  have  been  constantly 


413 

inspired  by  ideas  of  justice  and  have  always  tended  to 
the  faithful  execution  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  of  1883. 
I  shall  permit  myself,  however,  to  recall  in  this  respect 
only  that,  if  hitherto  we  have  been  unable  to  reach 
an  accord  with  Peru  as  to  the  manner  of  holding  the 
plebiscite  that  is  to  settle  that  question,  it  has  been, 
principally,  because  in  Chile  it  is  understood  that  in 
the  popular  vote  prescribed  by  Article  III  of  that 
Treaty  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  territory  in  litiga- 
tion may  take  part,  while  Your  Excellency's  Govern- 
ment maintains  that  the  right  to  vote  in  the  plebiscite 
belongs  exclusively  to  Peruvians.  If  there  exists,  in 
reference  to  this  point,  an  international  opinion  al- 
ready formed  in  America,  as  His  Excellency  the  Presi- 
dent expressed  it,  I  think  I  can  affirm  that  it  is  riot 
favorable  to  the  Peruvian  interpretation  of  the  Treaty. 

The  Chilean  interpretation  is  based  on  the  letter 
itself  of  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  and  on  the  antece- 
dents of  its  negotiation,  which  set  forth  what  was  its 
spirit,  and  our  statesmen  have  certainly  not  lessened 
their  prestige  by  upholding  it.  In  any  event,  it  is 
perhaps  unnecessary  to  say  that  the  prestige  of  the 
rulers  and  statesmen  of  a  country  does  not  rest  on  a 
judgment  formed  regarding  their  acts  by  the  rulers 
of  another  country  with  which  it  is  in  dissidence  as  to 
the  manner  of  the  understanding  and  applying  the  pro- 
visions of  a  treaty. 

Because  of  all  this  it  is  my  painful  duty  to  make  it 
clear  to  Your  Excellency  that  the  Government  of  Chile 
can  not  accept  the  imputation,  ungrateful  if  noth- 
ing else,  that  hitherto  it  has  not  followed,  in  the  dif- 
ferent phases  of  the  question  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  the 
path  that  justice  designated  to  it.  Justice  is  not  de- 
fined by  one  of  the  parties  in  litigation.   . 


414 

The  Government  of  this  Republic  has  constantly  de- 
sired to  put  an  end  to  the  prolonged  and  vexatious 
question  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  which  is  the  only  ob- 
stacle that  hinders  the  consolidation  of  a  cordial 
friendship  between  Chile  and  Peru. 

In  order  to  arive  at  such  a  result,  which  it  earnestly 
desires,  this  Government  will  continue  to  endeavor  to 
settle  the  question  according  to  the  provisions  of  the 
Treaty  of  1883,  and  it  will  strive,  within  their  scope, 
for  the  realization  of  its  legitimate  aspirations  to  the 
definitive  possession  of  the  aforementioned  territories. 

With  this  purpose  in  view,  it  has  always  desired  that 
the  plebiscite  should  be  effected  with  all  the  guaranties 
that  may  be  necessary  in  order  that  none  may  doubt 
the  legitimacy  of  its  result. 

I  take  this  opportunity  to  express  to  Your  Excel- 
lency the  assurances  of  my  high  and  distinguished 
consideration. 

Agustin  Edwards. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  to  Minister 
of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 

[Translation.] 

Ministry  of  Foreign  Relations, 
Lima,  September  9,  1909. 
Mr.  Minister: 

On  August  26  last  I  had  the  honor  to  receive  Your 
Excellency 's  note,  which  bears  the  date  of  the  eleventh 
of  the  same  month.  This  note  contains  representa- 
tions designed  to  comment  on  the  paragraph  relative 


415 

to  Chile  in  the  presidential  message  read  before  our 
Congress  on  the  occasion  of  the  opening  of  its  ordinary 
sessions. 

It  is  deeply  to  be  regretted  that  this  document  has 
attracted  the  attention  of  the  Chilean  Government  in 
the  sense  that  Your  Excellency  indicates,  and  not  in 
that  of  the  desire  it  contains  of  beholding  the  termina- 
tion of  the  divergence  that  prevents  perfect  cordiality 
between  Chile  and  Peru. 

The  Government  of  Chile  considers  that  the  address 
of  His  Excellency  the  President  of  Peru  contains  ex- 
pressions that  are  contrary  to  the  universal  practice 
of  international  courtesy  and  that  are  not  in  harmony 
with  the  consideration  due  to  the  Government  of  a 
country  that  is  at  peace  with  ours.  In  spite  of  the 
affirmation  that  I  transcribe,  I  can  assure  Your  Ex- 
cellency that  the  phrases  cited  do  not  imply  any  dis- 
regard whatsoever  of  courtesy  for  it  is  clear  that  there 
is  not  a  single  word  in  them  that  may  be  stamped  as 
incorrect.  The  message  is  an  exposition  in  which  the 
President  reports  the  progress  of  public  affairs,  in- 
cluding among  them  those  that  possess  an  international 
character.  This  being  the  case,  it  can  not  be  con- 
ceived, in  reality,  how  he  could  have  shirked  the  ob- 
ligation to  explain  the  state  of  the  problem  of  Tacna 
and  Arica,  or  have  discharged  it  with  data  that  would 
have  been  entirely  satisfactory  to  Chile.  Not  to  have 
mentioned  that  question  and  to  have  omitted  the  point 
relative  to  Your  Excellency's  Government,  after  hav- 
ing touched  on  those  that  refer  to  the  other  neighbor- 
ing countries,  would  perhaps  have  seemed  an  act  of 
disrespect ;  while  such  a  silence  regarding  a  point  that 
concerns  the  most  urgent  of  our  national  aspirations 
would  have  been  deemed  inexplicable  here.  To  deal 
with  it  and  at  the  same  time  to  conceal  the  truth  of 


416 

things  would  have  been  impossible.  The  head  of  the 
State  could  not  do  this,  because  he  is  under  obligation 
not  to  perturb  with  data  lacking  in  truth  the  judgment 
of  the  representatives,  who,  in  respect  of  the  neigh- 
boring countries,  must  duly  weigh  the  factors  that  may 
be  studied  as  a  possible  influence  at  a  time  in  which 
international  questions  of  a  grave  character  are  ven- 
tilated. 

The  paragraph  referred  to  is  very  true.  It  contains 
nothing  more  than  the  indications  indispensable  to 
giving  an  idea  of  the  situation  and  to  the  expression 
of  a  hope.  This  hope,  based  on  the  good  opinion  that 
we  entertain  here  of  the  intelligence  and  good  sense 
of  the  statesmen  of  Chile,  is  far  from  constituting  an 
offense.  In  spite  of  the  fact  that  more  than  fifteen 
years  have  passed  since  the  expiration  of  the  period 
of  occupation,  we  still  trust  that  the  truth  will  prevail 
and  that  Chile  will  listen  to  the  voice  of  justice  and  will 
not  oppose  the  solution  of  the  problem  that  separates 
us.  In  expressing  this,  His  Excellency  Senor  Legnia 
said  it  with  serenity,  with  the  greatest  of  moderation, 
without  words  of  protest  or  impatience,  without  so 
much  as  alluding  to  events,  incidents  or  news  that 
might  possibly  have  marred  the  simplicity  of  his  decla- 
rations, and  without  making,  finally,  any  reference 
whatsoever  to  the  policy  followed  in  relation  to  our 
fellow  countrymen  of  Tacna  and  Arica.  To  speak,  on 
the  other  hand,  of  maintaining  the  prestige  of  Chile, 
is,  it  may  easily  be  understood,  to  employ  a  brief  and 
courteous  formula  in  respect  of  Your  Excellency's 
country. 

His  Excellency  Senor  Leguia  also  asserted  that  the 
international  opinion  of  America  favors  us.  In  this 
phrase  there,  is  neither  an  intent  offensive  to  Chile  nor 
an  inaccuracy.    The  best  proof  of  it  may  be  seen  in  the 


417 

fact  that  we  should  be  disposed  to  accept  what  the 
representatives  of  the  said  countries,  assembled  in 
Congress,  might  resolve  with  a  view  to  settling  the 
points  of  divergence  that  separate  us  in  the  discussion 
pending,  as  we  should  be  disposed  also  to  accept  what 
some  one  of  them  alone  should  resolve,  if  she  were 
designated  for  that  purpose  by  common  consent.  Pre- 
cisely because  we  do  not  attempt,  by  ourselves  alone, 
to  define  justice — although  the  course  to  be  followed 
in  our  affair,  in  order  to  secure  it,  is  known — is  why 
we  are  and  always  have  been  ready  to  bow  to  the  de- 
cision of  a  serene  and  impartial  judge  or  tribunal,  and 
this,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  definitive  nationality 
of  Tacna  and  Arica  affects  us  more  than  it  affects 
Chile.  It  signalizes  and  defines,  in  reality,  who  it  is 
that  disregards  every  other  consideration  save  the 
one  that  consists  in  having  his  own  way. 

Your  Excellency  adds  that  the  views  expressed  in 
the  message  are  not  acceptable  because  the  acts  of  the 
Government  of  Chile  have  been  constantly  inspired  by 
ideas  of  justice ;  ideas  that  always  tend  to  the  execu- 
tion of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  perfected  in  1884.  With 
this  purpose  in  view,  it  is  clear  that  the  affair  could 
have  been  settled  long  ago,  since  it  is  unquestionable 
that  Peru  could  not  have  desired  the  contrary,  because 
of  her  natural  hope  of  recovering  territories  of  hers. 
Unfortunately,  this  purpose  has  not  been  expressed 
in  deeds,  and  from  this  fact  it  has  resulted  that  from 
postponement  to  postponement  we  find  ourselves  in 
the  present  situation.  The  only  occasion  on  which 
Your  Excellency's  Government  was  inclined  to  settle 
the  pending  difficulties,  by  the  expedite  and  friendly 
means  of  arbitration,  was  in  1898 ;  but  it  is  well  known 
that  this  same  happy  occasion  also  gave  place  in  Chile 
to  a  period  of  inaction  that  lasted  some  three  years 


418 

and  that  terminated  because  the  plan  was  definitively 
set  aside. 

Your  Excellency  says  that  if  Chile  has  not  yet  been 
able  to  reach  an  agreement  as  to  the  manner  of  hold- 
ing the  plebiscite,  it  is  principally  because  it  is  under- 
stood there  that  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  territory  in 
litigation  ought  to  participate  in  the  vote,  while  in 
Peru  it  is  held  that  the  right  of  suffrage  belongs  ex- 
clusively to  the  Peruvians.  The  true  cause  that  has 
militated  against  the  agreement  has  been  of  a  more 
general  character.  It  has  consisted  in  Chile's  difficulty 
in  assuring  the  result  in  her  favor,  in  view  of  the  insu- 
perable obstacle  of  the  will  of  the  immense  majority  of 
those  inhabitants,  who  have  always  been  opposed  to 
her ;  an  obstacle  that  has  led  her  not  to  accede  to  con- 
ditions taking  the  form  of  the  organization  and  execu- 
tion of  a  true  and  serious  plebiscite,  the  principal  one 
of  those  conditions  being  the  constitution  of  an  im- 
partial plebiscitary  authority. 

On  more  than  one  occasion  Peru  would  have  re- 
nounced the  unquestionable  right  that  belongs  to  her, 
of  requesting  that  only  Peruvians  should  vote,  if  she 
had  observed  in  the  Government  of  Chile  the  purpose 
of  lending  its  signature  to  a  plebiscitary  convention 
that  would  afford  guaranties  to  our  country.  Sen  or 
Ribeyro,  our  Plenipotentiary  in  Chile  in  1894,  thought 
he  beheld  such  a  purpose  at  that  time  and  he  formu- 
lated explicitly  the  renouncement  of  the  right  to  the 
exclusive  vote  of  the  Peruvians,  in  the  manner  that  is 
known,  but  this  was  not  sufficient  to  cause  the  accept- 
ance of  an  arrangement  on  the  part  of  Chile.  At  all 
events,  it  is  true  that,  if  the  disagreement  has  per- 
sisted, this  circumstance  is  due,  not  to  Peru,  but  to 
Chile,  which,  neither  on  this  point  nor  on  any  other, 
has  desired  to  seek  a  solution  through  the  decision  of 
an  impartial  judge. 


419 

In  view  of  what  has  been  said,  I  hope  that  Your 
Excellency's  Government  will  be  convinced  that  the 
message  read  by  His  Excellency  the  President -of  Peru 
before  the  Congress  of  the  current  year  contains  no  ex- 
pressions that  may  be  interpreted  as  an  intent  of  dis- 
courtesy to  Chile,  but  also  that  his  views  of  the  ante- 
cedents of  the  subject  of  Tacna  and  Arica  are  abso- 
lutely sincere, 

Peru  also  desires,  and  with  a  double  motive,  the  early 
execution  of  the  stipulation  agreed  on  in  Article  III 
of  the  Treaty  of  Peace,  because  of  the  earnest  desire 
she  cherishes  of  strengthening,  solidly  and  cordially, 
her  relations  with  Chile,  and  because  of  that  of  bring- 
ing again  to  the  bossom  of  our  country  the  provinces 
mentioned. 

I  take  this  opportunity  to  offer  to  Your  Excellency 
the  assurances  of  my  high  and  distinguished  consid- 
eration. 

M.  F.  Pokras. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  to  Minister  of 
Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 

[Translation.] 

Ministry  of  Foreign  Relations, 

Lima,  September  30,  1909. 
Mr.  Minister: 

The  Charge  d' Affaires  of  Peru  in  Santiago,  in  obedi- 
ence to  instructions  that  he  had  received  especially,  ex- 
plained, some  months  ago,  to  Your  Excellency's  hon- 
orable predecessor  that  the  church  of  Arica  had  been 
closed,  and  that  respectable  ladies  of  that  city,  de- 


420 

prived  since  then  of  the  practice  of  worship,  had  re- 
quested that  my  Government  should  approach  Your 
Excellency's  with  a  view  to  the  issuance  of  the  proper 
order  to  induce  the  authorities  of  that  port  to  remedy 
the  damage  that  has  been  caused.  He  declared  on 
that  occasion  that  the  circumstances  of  the  compul- 
sory absence  of  the  parson  did  not  excuse  the  proce- 
dure followed,  because  there  was  present  in  Arica  a 
priest  summoned  to  take  his  place. 

His  Excellency  Seiior  Balmaceda  offered  to  ask  for 
a  report  on  the  case,  which,  assuredly  has  not  been  so 
explicit  as  was  necessary  to  lead  to  a  satisfactory  solu- 
tion in  respect  of  the  church  of  Arica  and  the  churches 
of  Estique,  Belen  and  Codpa,  which  had  also  been 
closed  previously. 

As  this  situation  continues,  to  the  manifest  detriment 
of  the  Peruvian  residents  of  the  province  of  Arica,  I 
am  obliged  to  call  Your  Excellency's  attention  to  the 
attitude  of  the  authorities  indicated,  which,  doubtless, 
will  be  altered  by  virtue  of  the  express  orders  that 
Your  Excellency's  Government  may  issue  in  the 
premises. 

The  Government  of  Peru  holds  that  your  Excel- 
lency's Government  ought  to  take  these  steps,  because 
the  exceptional  regime  that  prevails  there  is  inadmis- 
sible. 

It  was  agreed  that  those  populations  should  be  gov- 
erned by  Chilean  laws  as  long  as  the  occupation  'should 
continue,  and  hence  it  is  impossible  to  discern  the 
ground  on  which  the  local  administration  can  take  its 
stand  to  proceed  in  such  a  manner  that  the  protection 
which  these  laws  are  designed  to  offer  is,  in  truth, 
withheld.  It  is  evident  that  to  deprive  a  people  of  the 
means  of  continuing  its  religious  practices  by  an  act 
of  violence  is  equivalent  to  the  suspension  of  one  of 
its  most  elementary  and  indispensable  rights. 


421 

I  must  also  call  Your  Excellency's  attention  to  the 
propriety  of  not  proceeding  with  the  plans  for  the 
colonization  of  lands  and  the  creation  of  the  depart- 
ment of  Tarata.  The  latter  grows  out  of  the  occupa- 
tion of  a  part  of  the  province  of  Tarata ;  a  point  that 
gave  rise  on  an  earlier  occasion  to  demands  by  Peru, 
based  on  the  express  tenor  of  the  stipulation  of  the 
Treaty  of  Peace,  which  designated  the  boundaries  of 
the  territory  of  the  provinces  of  Tacana  and  Arica, 
in  which  is  not  comprised  the  part  of  the  province 
of  Tarata  to  which  allusion  has  been  made. 

The  colonization  law  is  contrary  in  its  spirit  to  what 
that  Treaty  provides  in  settling  on  the  temporary  oc- 
cupation, because,  indeed,  the  mere  occupant  does  not 
possess  the  right  to  dispose  of  what  does  not  belong 
to  him,  and  much  less  under  circumstances  in  which 
the  occupation  may  cease  at  any  moment  by  reason  of 
the  expiration  of  the  period.  As  the  eventuality  of  the 
plebiscite  and  the  expectations  of  Peru  may  not  be  dis- 
regarded, it  is  deduced  that  Your  Excellency's  Gov- 
ernment ought  not  to  execute  a  measure  designed  to 
produce  its  effect  in  a  remote  future,  and  which,  sup- 
posing the  indefinite  continuance  of  the  Chilean  ad- 
ministration, might  be  interpreted  as  a  declaration  that 
these  eventualities  had  disappeared. 

In  formulating,  in  behalf  of  my  Government,  these 
representations  relative  to  the  interests  of  the  Peru- 
vians settled  in  Tacna  and  Arica,  I  cherish  the  con- 
fidence that  Your  Excellency  will  recognize  the  justice 
that  prompts  them,  and  that  the  Government  of  Chile 
will,  in  consequence,  act  in  a  manner  that  will  cause 
the  rights  on  which  they  are  based  to  be  respected. 

I  take  this  opportunity  to  reiterate,  Mr.  Minister,  the 
assurances  of  my  high  and  distinguished  consideration. 

M.    F.    PORKAS. 

To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Chile. 


422 

Minister  of  United  States  in  Chile  to  Secretary  of 
State  of  United  States. 

American  Legation, 

Santiago,  November  1,  1909. 
Sir: 

Referring  to  the  negotiations  for  a  settlement  of  the 
Tacna-Arica  question,  pending  between  Chile  and 
Peru,  I  have  the  honor  to  report  that  about  two  or 
three  weeks  ago  the  Chilean  Foreign  Office  sent  in- 
structions to  the  Charge  d 'Affaires  at  Lima  to  present 
to  the  Peruvian  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  the  bases 
which  Chile  was  willing  to  accept.  I  am  now  able  to 
inclose  herewith  a  statement  of  these  bases  written  by 
Minister  Edwards'  own  hand.  (Mr.  Edwards,  Chilean 
Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs.) 

The  Peruvian  Government  had  already  proposed  to 
enter  on  negotiations  for  a  settlement  and  that  min- 
isters plenipotentiary  be  sent  respectively  to  Santiago 
and  Lima.  No  bases  were,  however,  suggested  by 
Peru,  and  Chile  refused  to  exchange  ministers  until 
Peru  should  have  definitely  accepted  preliminary 
bases. 

The  Argentine  Minister  has  been  aiding  the  Foreign 
Office  all  he  can  during  the  last  three  weeks  to  induce 
the  Peruvian  Government  to  accept  Chile's  prelimi- 
nary terms.  He  tells  me,  however,  that  his  Govern- 
ment's action  has  not  been  and  will  not  be  in  the  way  of 
intervention  or  mediation,  but  only  by  way  of  friendly 
counsel.  Undoubtedly  already  the  Argentine  Foreign 
Office  has  offered  advice  on  the  subject  to  the  Peruvian 
Minister  at  Buenos  Aires  and  has  instructed  its  own 
Minister  at  Lima  to  offer  similar  advice  to  the  Foreign 
Office  there. 


423 

The  Argentine  Minister  approached  me  two  days 
ago  with  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  probable  dis- 
position of  the  State  Department  as  to  seconding  Ar- 
gentina's action  at  Lima  and  Washington.  I  told  him 
I  had  received  no  instructions,  information,  or  intima- 
tions from  the  Department. 

I  have,  etc. 

T.  C.  Dawson. 
To  the  Honorable, 

The  Secretary  of  State, 
Washington,  D.  C. 


Enclosure. 

Statement  of  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile 
of  the  Bases  for  Settlement  of  Tacna-Arica  Ques- 
tion. 

[Translation.] 

October  15,  1909. 

(1)  The  plebiscite  will  be  held  on  a  date  that  will 
allow  Chile  to  fulfill  her  undertakings  with  Bolivia  as 
to  the  construction  of  the  Arica-La  Paz  railroad.  Note : 
It  is  calculated  that  the  section  in  Chile  will  be  finished 
in  1911. 

(2)  The  voting  shall  be  by  secret  ballot  and  in  it 
shall  be  entitled  to  take  part  all  the  inhabitants — 
Chileans,  Peruvians  and  foreigners — who  shall  have 
the  following  qualifications: 

(a)  Citizenship  with  right  to  vote  in  Chile  or  Peru. 
Note :  the  same  qualifications  are  required  in  both 
countries. 

(b)  Minimum  residence  of  six  months  (in  the  dis- 
puted provinces.) 

(3)  Chile  shall  preside  over  the  acts  connected  with 
the  plebiscite  and  the  Electoral  Commission  shall  be 
composed  of  three  members:     a  Chilean,  who  shall 


424 

be  president;  a  Peruvian,  and  a  neutral.  Note:  As 
to  this  point  Chile  thinks  that  the  right  to  preside 
over  the  plebiscite  can  not  be  conceded  by  her  seeing 
that  her  sovereign  rights  continue  until  the  inhabi- 
tants of  Tacna  and  Arica  may  determine  to  return 
to  the  dominion  of  Peru.  This  does  not  permit  her 
to  act  otherwise  without  violating  her  own  national 
decorum  and  dignity.  Chile  is  disposed  to  accept 
whatever  method  Peru  may  propose  in  order  to  as- 
sure the  correctness  and  fairness  of  the  plebiscite, 
but  she  can  not  give  up  the  presidency  thereof.  In 
her  opinion  the  giving  up  of  the  presidency  would 
not  tend  to  this  end,  because  she  does  not  insist  upon 
it  with  the  purpose  of  making  the  plebiscite  unfair 
and  incorrect,  but  rather  because  the  existing  legal 
situation  requires  it,  and  because  of  the  rights  con- 
ferred upon  her  by  the  Treaty  of  Ancon. 

She  would  even  be  disposed  to  consent  that  the 
Electoral  Commission  be  composed  of  four  members : 
A  Chilean,  who  would  preside;  a  Peruvian,  and  two 
neutrals  of  differing  nationalities,  with  the  condition 
that  in  case  of  a  tie  the  opinion  of  the  President 
shall  prevail;  but  this  is  the  farthest  concession  she 
could  make. 

(4)  In  everything  not  inconsistent  with  the  present 
proposition,  Chile  would  accept  the  stipulations  of 
the  Billinghurst-Latorre  Protocol. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  to  Charge 

d' Affaires  of  Chile  in  Peru. 

Memorandum. 

[Translation.] 

[November  5,  1909.] 
The  following  modifications  are  necessary  in  the 
four   points   contained  in   the   memorandum   of   the 
Charge  d 'Affaires  of  Chile. 


425 

1.  The  Directive  Board  in  charge  of  the  organization 
of  the  plebiscite  will  begin  to  function  within  the 
period  of  three  months,  reckoned  from  the  day  on 
which  the  plebiscitary  protocol  shall  be  signed. 

2.  In  the  vote,  which  shall  be  public,  may  take  part 
all  the  Peruvians  and  Chileans  that  meet  the  follow- 
ing requirements : 

a.  Twenty-one  years  of  age; 

b.  Residence  in  the  territory  at  least  from  July  1, 
1907. 

Those  also  may  take  part  who,  born  in  the  territory 
of  Tacna  and  Arica,  may  be  present  at  the  moment 
of  the  vote,  if  they  shall  have  been  registered  pre- 
viously for  that  purpose. 

Public  employees  and  members  of  the  army  or  of 
the  police  that  may  be  in  service  in  the  provinces 
mentioned  may  not  vote. 

3.  The  Directive  Board  will  be  composed  of  three 
members,  namely:  one  Peruvian,  one  Chilean,  and 
one  neutral  designated  by  a  friendly  nation.  The 
chairmanship  shall  be  held  by  the  neutral.  The  boards 
for  the  registration  and  reception  of  the  votes  will 
also  be  composed  of  one  Peruvian,  one  Chilean  and 
one  neutral.  The  chairmanship  of  these  boards  shall 
also  be  held  by  the  neutral  delegate. 

4.  The  Directive  Board  will  designate  the  places 
where  the  registration  and  receiving  boards  are  to 
function. 

In  all  the  other  points  of  detail,  the  Billinghurst- 
Latorre  Protocol  shall  apply. 

November  5,  1909. 


r 


426 

Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile,  to  Minister  of 
Foreign  Relations  of  Peru. 

[Translation.] 

Santiago,  November  5,  1909. 
Mb.  Minister: 

I  have  the  honor  to  reply  to  the  communication 
that  Your  Excellency  saw  fit  to  address  to  me  un- 
der date  of  September  30  last  in  reference  to  the 
situation  in  which  certain  parochial  churches  of  the 
province  of  Tacna  are  placed;  to  the  law  recently 
passed  by  the  National  Congress,  which  extends  to 
that  province  the  application  of  the  colonization  laws ; 
and  to  the  plan  of  dividing  in  two  the  department 
of  Tacna. 

Your  Excellency  will  be  convinced  of  the  surprise 
that  my  Government  has  been  occasioned  by  the  rep- 
resentations that  Your  Excellency  has  conceived  it 
necessary  to  make,  if  you  consider  that  the  acts  to 
which  you  allude  have  been  accomplished  in  the  em- 
ployment of  the  sovereign  attributes  that  the  Treaty 
of  Ancon  conferred  on  my  country  in  those  territories, 
with  no  other  limitation  save  the  eventuality  of  a 
popular  vote  against  the  present  state  of  things  by 
a  majority  of  their  inhabitants  convoked  to  a  plebi- 
scite. 

Measures  taken  in  the  use  of  rights  conferred  by 
sovereignty  may  not  be  material  for  international  con- 
troversy, because  they  constitute  private  and  internal 
acts  that  are  removed,  by  their  very  essence,  from 
the  criticism  of  other  nations.  If  Your  Excellency 
will  bear  in  mind  that  measures  relative  to  churches 
and  the  priests  in  charge  thereof  have  to  do  with 
public  establishments  and  functionaries,  subject  as 
such  to  the  immediate  vigilance  and  patronage  of  the 


427 

State,  you  will  have  to  agree  to  admit  the  inappropri- 
ateness  of  representations  that  refer  to  them. 
*  Nevertheless,  in  order  to  afford  Your  Excellency  an 
indisputable  ptoof  of  the  lofty  spirit  of  conciliation 
and  harmony  that  animates  my  Government,  I  shall 
proceed  to  demonstrate  to  you  that  the  measures 
enunciated  are  all  in  harmony  with  the  letter  and  spirit 
of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  which  prescribed  the  appli- 
cation of  Chilean  legislation  and  the  jurisdiction  of 
our  authorities  in  the  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

The  fundamental  Charter  of  the  Republic  provides 
for  the  right  of  patronage,  in  respect  of  churches, 
benefices  and  ecclesiastical  persons,  and  the  Execu- 
tive exercises  it  throughout  the  whole  national  ter- 
ritory as  one  of  its  faculties,  among  other  ways,  by 
conferring  on  the  priests  the  permission  necessary 
to  the  exercise  of  their  functions.  Nothing  would  jus- 
tify an  exception  in  the  case  of  the  province  of  Tacna. 

The  parochial  priests  of  Arica,  Estique,  Belen  and 
Codpa,  whom  Your  Excellency  mentions,  have  refused 
to  comply  with  this  requirement  that  the  Constitution 
exacts,  and  they  have  thereby  rendered  inevitable  the 
measure  that  Your  Excellency  conceives  to  be  founded 
on  an  exceptional  regime.  Precisely  because  it  was 
agreed,  as  Your  Excellency  will  recall,  that  the  popula- 
tions of  Tacna  and  Arica  should  be  governed  by  Chilean 
laws,  is  it  that  the  measures  taken  in  respect  of  the 
public  functionaries  who  do  not  submit  to  the  author- 
ity that  exercises  over  them  its  constitutional  right 
of  patronage  have  become  inevitable. 

The  Constitution  of  the  Republic  provided  that  the 
State  should  exercise  the  right  of  patronage  mainly 
in  order  that  it  might  share  with  the  Church  the 
moral  responsibility  that  is  involved  in  the  designation 
of  individuals  that  enjoy  an  irreproachable  reputation 


428 

for  the  discharge  of  such  delicate  and  intimate  func- 
tions as  those  that  have  to  do  with  the  conscience. 

In  the  case  of  each  of  the  priests  Your  Excellency 
mentions,  you  will  understand,  without  the  necessity 
of  entering  into  further  explanations,  how  zealous  my 
Government  has  been  obliged  to  be  in  the  fulfillment 
of  the  duties  that  the  Constitution  assigns  to  it. 

Far  from  depriving  by  an  act  of  violence,  as  Your 
Excellency  affirms,  the  populations  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  of  the  means  of  continuing  their  religious  prac- 
tices, my  Government  seeks  only  the  fulfillment  of  the 
laws  that  the  Constitution  intrusts  to  it;  and  in  its 
anxiety  to  provide  there  every  kind  of  facility  for  the 
exercise  of  worship,  it  has  fostered  and  it  continues 
to  foster,  with  the  ecclesiastical  authorities,  measures 
that  tend  to  give  to  the  priests  of  all  nationalities 
the  permission  necessary  to  the  exercise  of  their  sac- 
erdotal ministrations. 

The  Government  of  Peru,  doing  full  honor  to  the 
desires  that  Your  Excellency  manifests,  of  seeing 
ample  arrangements  made  for  the  religious  practices 
of  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  province  of  Tacna,  could 
cooperate  efficaciously  with  my  Government  in  the 
manner  indicated. 

In  this  respect,  I  ought,  before  proceeding  further,  to 
remind  Your  Excellency  that  it  is  precisely  the  Chilean 
inhabitants  of  the  province  mentioned  that  rightly  com- 
plain of  being  deprived,  in  the  territories  subject  to 
the  sovereignty  of  Chile,  of  the  means  of  continuing 
their  religious  practices  with  priests  of  their  own 
nationality.  Your  Excellency  knows  how  futile  have 
been  the  efforts  made  to  obtain  from  the  Illustrious 
Bishop  of  Arequipa  licenses  that  the  diocesans  of 
the  whole  world  do  not  deny,  save  for  grave  reasons 
that  affect  the  persons  themselves  that  solicit  them. 


429 

The  bill  that  creates  the  department  of  Tarata  has 
also  attracted  the  attention  of  Your  Excellency's  Gov- 
ernment, which  expresses  its  insistency  by  considering 
that  district  comprised  within  the  limits  of  the  ancient 
Peruvian  province  of  that  name. 

The  creation  of  the  department  of  Tarata"  means 
simply  the  subdivision,  in  order  to  render  more  ef- 
fective the  public  administration  of  the  territories 
subject  to  the  sovereignty  of  Chile  by  virtue  of  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon ;  and  my  Government  holds  that  this 
private  and  internal  act  does  not  properly  call  for 
remonstrances  on  the  part  of  the  Government  of  Peru, 
just  as  there  would  be  no  call  for  them,  if  my  Gov- 
ernment had  provided,  with  a  view  to  improving  the 
course  of  administration  and  to  the  interests  of  its 
inhabitants,  for  the  fusion  in  a  single  department  of 
the  two  into  which  the  province  of  Tacna  is  now- 
divided. 

The  distance  of  the  district  of  Tarata  from  the  cap- 
ital of  the  province  is  the  reason  that  has  determined 
this  measure,  which  will  enable  my  Government  to  im- 
prove all  the  administrative  services  by  providing 
them  with  superior  authorities  of  Government,  justice 
and  public  safety. 

The  interest  that  has  always  been  shown  by  the 
Government  of  Peru  in  the  fate  and  well-being  of 
the  inhabitants  of  Tacna  and  Arica  has  caused  my 
Government  to  suppose,  logically,  that  this  measure, 
designed  to  better  the  general  condition  of  existence 
in  the  district  mentioned,  far  from  giving  rise  to 
representations,  would  have  been  well  received  by 
Your  Excellency. 

In  another  province  of  the  Republic,  similar  reasons 
have  induced  my  Government  to  create  the  depart- 
ment  of  Loa.    Your  Excellency  will  see,   therefore, 


430 

that  exceptional  and  extraordinary  measures  have  not 
been  adopted,  as  you  believe,  in  that  territory. 

The  question  that  Your  Excellency  raises  by  re- 
iterating opinions  held  by  the  Government  of  Peru, 
on  earlier  occasions,  as  to  the  boundaries  of  the  former 
Peruvian  provinces  of  Tacna,  Arica  and  Tarata,  is, 
in  the  view  of  my  Government,  subordinated  to  that 
of  the  settlement  of  the  main  problem  of  the  definitive 
nationality  of  those  territories. 

It  is  the  result  of  the  plebiscite,  which  Your  Ex- 
cellency seems  to  consider,  as  a  foregone  conclusion, 
adverse  to  the  interests  of  Peru,  that  can  give  to  the 
question  involved  real  and  effective  importance. 

The  enactment  that  causes  the  application  of  the 
colonization  laws  to  extend  to  the  province  of  Tacna 
is  the  object  of  several  considerations  in  the  communi- 
cation to  which  I  am  replying. 

In  spite  of  the  circumstance,  already  adduced,  that 
this  law  is  a  private  and  internal  act  of  my  Govern- 
ment, executed  in  the  employment  of  its  sovereign 
rights,  the  especial  deference  and  exquisite  courtesy 
with  which  it  desires  to  distinguish  its  relations  with 
Peru,  induce  it  to  demonstrate  the  complete  absence 
from  it  of  provisions  that  might  violate  the  Treaty 
of  Ancon  and  the  eventual  rights  that  Your  Excel- 
lency 's  country  derives  from  this  Treaty. 
I  The  colonization  laws  that  are  to  be  applied  in 
Tacna  prevail  in  other  provinces  of  the  territory  of 
the  Republic,  and,  furthermore,  I  should  add  that,  at 
the  date  in  which  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  was  signed, 
the  most  of  them  were  already  enacted. 

Your  Excellency  is  aware  that  the  application  of 
the  Chilean  laws  to  the  territories  in  litigation  has 
no  restrictions,  and  that  if  the  purpose  of  the  nego- 
tiators of  that  Treaty  had  been  to  prevent  the  pos- 


431 

sibility  of  the  application  of  the  colonization  laws, 
they  would  have  expressly  stipulated  so. 

Your  Excellency  asserts  that  * '  the  mere  occupant ' ' — 
thus  Your  Excellency  has  been  pleased  to  define  the 
situation  of  Chile  in  Tacna  and  Arica — ' '  does  not  pos- 
sess the  right  to  dispose  of  what  does  not  belong  to 
him,  and  much  less  under  circumstances  in  which  the 
occupation  may  cease  at  any  moment  by  reason  of  the 
expiration  of  the  period." 

I  ought,  first  of  all,  to  refute  the  view — erroneous 
in  the  judgment  of  my  Government — that  Your  Ex- 
cellency entertains  of  the  period  fixed  for  the  deter- 
mination of  the  definitive  nationality  of  Tacna  and 
Arica. 

It  is  needless  to  mention  the  idea  of  "expired 
period,"  since  the  obvious  interpretation  of  the  Treaty 
of  Ancon  gives  necessarily  to  understand  the  period 
of  ten  years  that  was  set  for  the  holding  of  the  plebi- 
scite as  a  minimum  of  time,  and  in  no  way  as  a 
period  in  which  the  popular  vote  prescribed  by  it 
should  have  been  taken. 

In  this  respect,  I  will  remind  Your  Excellency,  be- 
sides, that  it  is  not  a  definite  period  that  can,  by 
virtue  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  place  a  limit  on  the 
exercise  of  the  sovereignty  of  Chile,  but  only  the 
the  result  of  a  plebiscite  adverse  to  her  aspirations. 

Contingencies  of  all  kinds  that  might  have  inter- 
fered with  an  agreement  on  the  part  of  the  two  Gov- 
ernments to  sign  the  complementary  protocol  could 
not  have  escaped  the  prevision  of  the  negotiators,  and 
if  it  had  been  their  intention  to  set  a  limit,  by  every 
means,  on  the  exercise  of  sovereignty  by  Chile  at 
the  expiration  of  the  period  of  ten  years,  they  would 
thus  have  expressly  stipulated.  Consequently,  it 
would  be  superfluous,  it  seems  to  me,  to  declare  that 


432 

my  Government  regards  as  in  force  in  all  their  pleni- 
tude the  rights  conferred  on  it  by  the  Treaty  of  An- 
con. 

The  colonization  of  the  untilled  and  unproductive 
lands  of  the  province  of  Tacna  with  national  farmers 
will,  if  the  irrigation  enterprises  now  under  considera- 
tion turn  out  to  be  practicable,  convert  the  present 
deserts  into  productive  fields,  and  whatsoever  be  the 
result  of  the  plebiscite,  my  Government  takes  the 
view  that  the  country  that  shall  win  at  the  polls  will 
unquestionably  enjoy  the  benefits  of  acquiring  terri- 
tories capable  of  providing  for  their  own  needs  by 
their  wealth  and  production. 

If  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  conferred  on  Chile  all  the 
privileges  that  sovereignty  implies,  it  imposed  on  her 
likewise  the  duties  that  spring  from  it,  and  Your  Ex- 
cellency will  doubtless  have  to  recognize  that  among 
them  none  is  more  imperative  than  that  of  fostering 
the  moral  and  material  betterment  of  the  populations. 

The  circumstance  that  the  proprietors  of  the  soil 
are  Chileans  in  no  wise  affects  the  rights  of  the  sov- 
ereign, for  a  change  of  sovereignty  may  occur  in  any 
territory  without  infringing  the  rights  of  private  prop- 
erty, just  as  private  property  may  change  owners 
without  affecting  sovereignty.  These  are  two  ques- 
tions essentially  different. 

Under  the  protection  of  the  same  colonization  laws, 
applicable  to-day  to  Tacna,  persons  of  all  national- 
ities obtain  concessions  of  lands  in  the  south  of  the 
Republic,  and  my  Government  has  never  considered 
them  as  attacks  upon  its  sovereignty.  Note,  Your 
Excellency,  that,  in  these  cases  it  is  a  question  of 
an  unequivocably  foreign  colonization  and  of  terri- 
tories that  no  one  disputes,  and  let  Your  Excellency 
judge  for  yourself  whether,  in  the  case  of  Tacna  and 


433 

Arica— provinces  that  Peru  may  not  rightly  consider 
hers,  and,  in  respect  of  Chilean  citizens,  who  would 
have  there  at  least  as  good  a  right  as  the  Peruvians 
to  be  considered  nationals — the  sovereign  rights  that 
Peru  believes  it  possible  to  exercise  again  some  day 
may  be  regarded  as  violated. 

In  order  to  convince  Your  Excellency  of  the  com- 
plete lack  of  foundation  on  which  Peru  can  rely  in 
adducing  the  representations  to  which  I  have  been 
replying,  permit  me  to  say  that,  if  the  plebiscite  had 
already  been  held,  in  justification  of  the  legitimate 
aspirations  of  my  country,  no  constitutional  or  legal 
principle  of  ours  could  prevent  Peruvian  citizens  from 
holding  or  acquiring  real  property  in  Tacna,  just  as, 
in  the  contrary  case,  no  prescription  of  the  fun- 
damental Charter  or  law  of  Peru  could  prevent  Chilean 
citizens  from  holding  or  acquiring  the  same. 

My  Government  earnestly  desires  the  definitive  ter- 
mination of  the  only  difficulty  that  interferes  with  the 
union  of  the  two  countries  in  a  close  and  fruitful 
friendship  for  the  good  of  both. 

In  order  to  secure  it,  it  is  necessary  to  seek  a 
formula  that  will  have  regard  for  the  permanent  in- 
terests of  Chile  and  of  Peru,  which  will  consider  the 
reality  of  things,  which  will  embody  the  letter  and 
spirit  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  and  which  will  for  ever 
reestablish  harmony  by  uniting  the  common  destinies 
of  these  countries  with  ties  of  every  kind  that  will 
strengthen  their  commercial  and  political  amity. 

By  avoiding  controversies  that  are  alien  to  the  en* 
deavor  at  agreement  regarding  the  principal  subject 
and  by  confining  the  efforts  of  Your  Excellency's 
Government  and  of  mine  to  this  aim,  which  is  supreme, 
we  shall  obtain  the  greatest  benefits  that  it  is  pos- 
sible to  secure  for  these  two  nations. 


434 

I  am  pleased  to  take  the  opportunity  to  express  to 
Your  Excellency  the  sentiments  of  my  highest  and 
most  distinguished  consideration. 

Agustin  Edwards. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  to  Minister  of 
Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 

[Translation.] 

Lima,  December  23,  1909. 
Mr.  Minister  : 

I  have  had- the  honor  to  receive  Your  Excellency's 
note  that  contains  the  answer  of  the  Government  of 
Chile  to  'the  observations  formulated  by  that  of  Peru 
in  respect  of  the  serious  measures  adopted  in  the  terri- 
tory of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

In  spite  of  the  nature  of  the  reply,  my  Government 
deems  it  proper  to  insist  on  the  steps  that  it  has  under- 
taken with  so  little  success ;  and  it  insists  with  all  the 
more  reason,  inasmuch  as,  subsequently  to  the  events 
to  which  my  first  communication  referred,  there  have 
occurred  others  as  serious  as  the  earlier  ones,  which 
reveal,  besides,  in  a  very  accentuated  manner,  the  de- 
sign of  hostility  with  which  are  inspired  the  Chilean 
authorities  that  are  in  charge  of  the  public  administra- 
.tion  of  that  territory. 

\  Peruvian  laborers,  who  earned  their  daily  living  in 
Arica  as  seamen  and  longshoremen,  have  been  forced 
to  abandon  their  work.  Numerous  groups  of  these 
laborers  have  had  to  emigrate  from  the  soil  on  which 
they  were  born  and  on  which,  slowly  and  systemati- 


435 

cally,  their  fellow-countrymen  are  deprived  of  all  right 
to  work  and  of  the  protective  support  of  the  laws.  In 
the  eyes  of  foreign  merchants  it  is  a  hindrance  or  a  dis- 
advantage to  have  Peruvian  employees,  because  they 
are  threatened  in  the  custom-house;  and,  in  general, 
wherever  there  is  an  agent  of  the  administration  or  an 
influence  derived  from  it,  there  exists  also  an  obstacle 
that  takes  the  form  of  animosity  or  persecution  in  re- 
spect of  those  that  desire  to  retain,  at  all  costs,  their 
affection  for  Peru.  ^ 

In  Tacna  similar  occurrences  are  taking  place. 
There  have  been  founded,  or  it  is  being  planned  to  *"*  n& 
found,  industrial  enterprises,  with  the  support  of  the 
State,  designed  to  compete  with  Peruvian  enterprises 
or  Peruvian  industrials  established  there  for  a  long 
time.  It  is  believed  that  this  competition  will  result  in 
the  earlier  industrials  being  forced  to  close  their  fac- 
tories, thus  throwing  out  of  work  the  laborers  they  em- 
ploy, who,  in  turn,  will  have  to  emigrate.  As  it  is  not 
#  question  of  mere  private  initiative,  but  of  that  which 
is  maintained  by  the  authorities,  it  is  necessary  to 
stamp  as  improper  the  creation  of  those  industries 
designed  to  drive  out  those  of  an  equal  character  that 
already  exist  and  to  provoke  the  ruin  or  helplessness 
of  Peruvian  families  that  live  by  means  of  them.  ■/)#$  ^ 

A  new  occurrence  is  also  encountered  in  the  closing       C l 
of  the  churches  of  Tacna,  which  happened  after  the 
Bishop  of  Arequipa's  appointment  of  Senor  Flores 
Mestres  to  take  the  place  of  the  incumbent,   Senor 
Ardia,  who  died  recently. 

It  is  possible  that  Your  Excellency  may  not  be  ac- 
quainted, in  all  their  vexations  details,  with  those  re- 
cent events  for  which  the  authorities  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  are  directly  responsible,  just  as  it  is  also  possi- 
ble that  the  reports  that  the  Government  of  Chile  has 


436 

received,  and  that  have  been  occasioned  by  acts  in 
which  it  has  taken  the  initiative,  are  based  on  inaccu- 
rate information.  It  is  my  duty,  consequently,  to  call 
Your  Excellency's  attention  to  all  of  them,  in  order 
that,  by  considering  them  together  with  those  that  I 
have  previously  indicated,  Your  Excellency's  Govern- 
ment may  be  convinced  that  the  Peruvian  inhabitants 
of  the  provinces  mentioned  are  subjected,  practically, 
to  a  regime  of  exception  in  respect  of  the  Chilean  laws, 
which  are  applicable  according  to  the  Treaty  of  Peace. 

If  prolonged  thought  be  given  this  point,  as  also  to 
the  true  scope  of  the  powers  this  Treaty  conferred 
on  Chile,  there  is  no  doubt  that  Your  Excellency's  Gov- 
ernment will  decide  to  rescind  the  measures  adopted, 
since,  according  to  what  it  is  natural  to  suppose,  it  is 
impossible  to  admit  that  it  should  disregard  the  bind- 
ing force  of  the  Treaty  to  which  it  has  attached  its 
signature,  or  that  it  should  persist  in  acts  that  have 
sprung  from  an  erroneous  interpretation  of  it,  when 
the  character  of  this  interpretation  shall  have  been 
made  clear. 

The  fundamental  ground  that  I  ought  to  allege  to 
Your  Excellency,  as  an  evidence  that  the  powers  to 
which  reference  was  made  in  the  communication  I  am 
answering  are  exaggerated,  is  deduced  from  the  text 
itself  of  the  pertinent  article  of  the  Treaty.  In  reality 
the  terms  of  the  article  are  as  follows: 

"The  territory  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and 
Arica,  which  is  bounded  on  the  north  by  the  Sama 
Kiver  from  its  rise  in  the  Cordilleras  that  form 
the  boundary  with  Bolivia  to  its  discharge  into  the 
ocean;  on  the  south,  by  the  gorge  and  River  of 
Camarones ;  on  the  east,  by  the  Republic  of  Bo- 
livia; and  on  the  west,  by  the  Pacific  Ocean,  will 
continue  to  be  possessed  by  Chile  and  subject  to 


437 

Chilean  legislation  and  authorities  for  the  period 
of  ten  years,  reckoned  from  the  ratification  of  the 
present  Treaty  of  Peace.  After  the  expiration  of 
this  period,  a  plebiscite  will  decide,  by  popular 
vote,  whether  the  territory  of  the  aforementioned 
provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica  shall  remain  defini- 
tively under  the  dominion  and  sovereignty  of 
Chile,  or  whether  it  shall  continue  to  be  a  part  of 
the  Peruvian  terirtory." 

The  exchange  of  ratifications  took  place  in  March, 
1884.  Consequently  the  period  of  occupation  on  which 
an  agreement  was  reached  ended  in  March,  1894.  It 
was  not  a  minimum ;  it  was  a  fixed  period,  which,  when 
it  had  expired,  the  plebiscite  ought  to  have  been  held, 
and  which  was  not  carried  into  effect  then;  nor  has  it 
been  possible  to  do  so  since  then,  in  spite  of  the  many 
years  that  have  passed,  because  Chile  has  not  been 
willing  to  arrive  at  an  understanding  with  Peru  in 
order  to  agree  on  the  plebiscitary  regulations ;  nor 
have  steps  been  taken  to  submit  to  arbitration  the 
points  of  divergence  that  prevented  this  understand- 
ing, on  the  occasions  in  which  discussions  were  opened 
in  respect  of  the  particular. 

Because  of  this  well  known  antecedent  and  because 
it  is  evident  that  Peru  could  not  interfere,  by  an  act  of 
her  own,  with  the  recovery  of  her  provinces,  no  one 
can  doubt  that  the  sixteen  years  of  Chilean  occupation, 
in  despite  of  the  convention,  are,  in  effect,  due  to  the 
exclusive  action  of  Your  Excellency's  Government. 
That  occupation,  therefore,  constitutes  a  fact  that  im- 
plies no  responsibilities  on  Peru's  part. 

This  fact  may  cease  at  any  moment.  Bearing  in  mind 
this  consequence — and  without  taking  into  account 
that  the  situation  that  existed  in  March,  1894,  is  what 
legally  determines  the  solution  of  the  problem — it  is 
clear  that,  since  the  holding  of  the  plebiscite  ought  to 


438 

be  deemed  imminent,  this  eventuality  is  irreconcilable 
with  the  policy  adopted,  because  the  innovations  intro- 
duced or  projected  presuppose  the  possession  of  a  title 
that  Chile  might  employ,  without  the  possibility  of  any 
contestation  whatsoever,  in  order  to  continue  the  pres- 
ent state  of  things. 

Since  this  title  does  not  exist,  her  attitude  ought  to 
be  the  same  as  it  would  be  if  she  were  on  the  eve  of  the 
plebiscite.  She  had,  during  the  ten  years  agreed  on, 
the  right  to  bestir  herself  in  order  to  win  the  sympathy 
and  attachment  of  the  inhabitants  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 
It  is  well  known  that  the  period  passed  without  her  se- 
curing this  sympathy,  because  of  which,  it  may  be  said, 
the  definitive  nationality  of  the  territory  was  then 
virtually  decided.  To  believe,  therefore,  that,  because 
of  the  simple  fact  of  a  postponement  to  which  Peru 
did  not  consent  and  after  sixteen  years  in  which  the 
obligation  to  return  Tacna  and  Arica  has  been  in  sus- 
pense ;  to  believe,  I  repeat,  that  Chile  has  the  right  to 
dictate  measures  that  tend  to  obtain  the  majority  of 
votes  in  favor  of  her  cause  by  bringing  about  a  change 
in  the  population  is  to  discredit  the  thought  of  the 
negotiators,  is  to  desire  to  accomplish  by  arbitrary 
acts,  during  a  period  of  more  than  twenty-five  years, 
what  was  not  achieved  by  lawful  acts  in  ten  years. 

That  the  acts  that  have  been  accomplished  during  re- 
cent times  by  the  functionaries  of  Tacna  and  Arica  are 
not  lawful  is  a  point  that  has  been  established  by  my 
Government  on  several  occasions.  Under  the  same  ir- 
regular circumstances  as  those  under  which  the  occu- 
pied territory  exists,  that  is,  with  the  hypothesis  that 
the  uncovenanted  period  of  occupation  is  perfectly 
legitimate,  it  is  impossible  to  claim  that  the  spirit  of 
the  Treaty  has  been  altered  by  time  and  that  today 
the  occupant  is  permitted  to  subject  Peruvians  to  an 


439 

exceptional  regime,  which  is  expressed  practically  in 
an  intent  to  expel  them  from  their  own  territory. 

It  was  unnecessary  to  incorporate  in  Clause  III  of 
the  Treaty  of  Ancon  the  purpose  to  respect  the  rights 
as  a  whole  of  the  inhabitants  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  be- 
cause it  would  result  from  the  state  of  peace  that  was 
substituted  for  the  state  of  war,  and  from  the  expecta- 
tions cherished  by  Peru  in  view  of  the  engagement  with 
Chile  as  to  the  popular  vote.  Between  the  period  of 
military  occupation  and  that  of  the  definitive  determi- 
nation of  sovereignty,  an  agreement  was  reached  as  to 
the  intermediary  period  of  occupation  for  ten  years: 
an  interval  of  time  during  which  the  territory  was  sub- 
ject to  a  special  condition. 

This  condition  was  characterized,  in  the  first  place, 
by  the  expectations  of  each  party;  and  in  the  second, 
by  the  Peruvian  nationality  of  the  inhabitants,  on  the 
one  hand,  and  the  Chilean  nationality  of  the  admini- 
stration, on  the  other.  The  existence  of  these  two  ele- 
ments is  the  reason  why  it  was  agreed  that  Chilean 
laws  should  prevail  and  that  at  the  same  time  it  was 
certain  that  this  arrangement  could  not  be  understood 
in  the  sense  and  amplitude  in  which  this  legislation 
prevails  in  any  of  the  provinces  that  constitute  a  part 
of  the  Chilean  nation.  There  are  laws  without  which 
it  is  impossible  to  conceive  of  the  normal  life  of  a  civil- 
ized people.  The  agreement  of  the  two  countries  re- 
ferred to  these  laws :  laws  that  were  characterized  by 
indispensability,  because  they  signify  protection  and 
security  in  the  social  realm;  and  not  those  that  possess 
a  political  character  or  those  that  are  derived  from  the 
absolute  exercise  of  sovereignty.  It  would  be  inex- 
plicable, for  example,  that  the  inhabitants  of  Tacna 
and  Arica  should  have  taken  part  in  the  election  of 
senators  and  deputies  and  of  presidents  of  Chile,  be- 


440 

cause,  on  entering  into  this  special  state  already  men- 
tioned, they  did  not  lose  the  nationality  they  possessed. 

Not  only  is  Chile  obliged  by  the  nature  of  things  to 
respect  the  sentiment  of  those  people  and  not  to  exer- 
cise in  them  other  powers  than  those  that  are  derived 
from  the  guaranties  mentioned,  but  also  she  may  not 
compromise  their  future,  dispose  in  perpetuity  of  what 
belongs  solely  to  the  owner  of  the  soil  or  enact 
measures  that  are  not  in  consonance  with  the  character 
of  the  mere  usufructuary. 

Hence  the  plans  of  colonization  and  expropriation 
are  completely  unacceptable.  And  it  is  not  germane 
to  the  subject  to  allege,  as  Your  Excellency  does,  the 
material  betterment  of  the  towns  and  the  benefit  that 
will  be  derived  by  the  country  that  shall  come  off  vic- 
torious in  the  plebiscite,  because,  besides  from  the 
fact  that  it  is  well  known  that  this  is  not  the  essential 
motive  pursued,  the  public  sentiment  of  the  people  in 
question  is  not  in  accord  with  the  plans  under  discus- 
sion and  because,  in  any  event,  it  would  be  necessary 
logically  to  admit  at  least  that  when  plans  of  so  far- 
reaching  a  character  are  undertaken,  Peru  also  would 
have  a  right  to  assent  or  to  dissent  previously  to  them. 

The  essential  motive  seems  to  have  been  to  cause  the 
properties  to  change  owners,  that  is,  that  Peruvian 
agriculturists  should  be  replaced  by  Chilean  agricul- 
turists. It  is  evident,  as  Your  Excellency  indicates, 
that  "a  change  of  sovereignty  may  occur  in  any  terri- 
tory without  infringing  the  rights  of  private  prop- 
erty, just  as  private  property  may  change  owners 
without  affecting  sovereignty/'  but  this  has  noth- 
ing to  do  with  the  present  case.  The  transfer  of 
private  property,  effected  naturally  and  spontaneously 
is  one  thing,  and  a  very  different  thing  is  the  compul- 
sion that  shall  force  the  owner  of  a  country  estate  to 


441 

sell  it,  although  he  may  not  wish  to  do  so,  and  not  with 
a  view  to  serving  the  public  interests  of  the  locality, 
but  only  with  that  of  assuring  there  the  presence  of 
Chilean  cultivators  instead  of  Peruvian. 

As  Chile  had  at  no  time  acquired  sovereignty  over 
the  territory  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  it  was  never  thought, 
either,  that  she  might  claim  the  right  of  patronage 
over  it.  The  exaction  of  the  so-called  constitutional 
permission  to  authorize  the  priests  in  charge  of 
parishes  designated  by  the  Bishop  of  Arequipa  to  exer- 
cise their  functions  freely  was  not  put  into  practice 
previously,  and  this  circumstance  caused  no  disturb- 
ance whatsoever,  because  the  faithful  of  Chilean 
nationality  have  not  felt  mortified  by  it.  If  morti- 
fication could  be  felt  now,  this  feeling,  like  other 
mortifications  that  spring  from  the  present  situation, 
ought  to  be  taken  into  account  in  order  to  bring  to 
a  conclusion  the  international  problem  that  is  pend- 
ing. If  the  purpose  of  the  negotiators  had  been  to  es- 
tablish the  right  of  the  exigency  mentioned,  they  would 
have  so  indicated  expressly  in  the  Treaty  or  they  would 
have  made  legal  provision  for  the  change  in  ecclesias- 
tical jurisdiction.  Neither  the  one  thing  nor  the  other 
has  taken  place,  because  both  were  unnecessary,  in  view 
of  the  relative  shortness  of  the  period  of  occupation, 
and,  above  all,  of  the  character  thereof.  This  has  been 
understood  in  its  rigid  impartiality  by  the  Holy  See, 
since  it  has  not  acceded,  in  recent  times,  to  the  efforts 
of  the  representatives  of  Your  Excellency's  Govern- 
ment, and  the  same  has  also  been  understood  by  the 
authorities  of  Chile  themselves,  inasmuch  as  they  have 
formulated  no  claims  in  respect  of  acts  of  force  during 
the  years  prior  to  the  policy  begun  under  the  name  of 
Chileanization. 

The  closing  of  the  churches  throughout  the  territory 
has  deprived  its  Catholic  inhabitants  of  the  practices 


442 

of  worship,  thus  deeply  wounding  the  religious  senti- 
ment by  which  they  are  moved.  The  measure  has  in- 
cluded parish  priests  who,  for  a  long  time,  have  tran- 
quilly exercised  their  ministry,  and  from  this  comes, 
among  those  that  suffer  from  the  effects  of  the  violent 
suppression  of  worship,  the  general  idea  that  it  is  not 
the  permission  that  has  given  rise  to  the  measure,  but 
the  necessity  of  removing  Peruvian  incumbents  re- 
garding whom  it  is  assumed  that  they  are  using  their 
influence  to  keep  alive  the  national  sentiment  that 
Chile  has  not  been  able  to  smother  by  any  means  dur- 
ing the  thirty  years  of  exclusive  administration. 

It  is,  at  all  events,  an  undeniable  and  lamentable 
fact  that  the  inhabitants  of  Tacna  and  Arica  live  under 
an  exceptional  regime  in  respect  of  religion.  They 
suffer  there  for  the  want  of  application  of  one  of  the 
essential  guaranties  characteristic  of  civilized  life : 
that  of  engaging  in  the  public  worship  that  the  occu- 
pying State  itself  supports. 

Your  Excellency  is  of  the  opinion  that  it  was  sup- 
posable  that  my  Government  might  welcome  the  news 
of  the  creation  of  the  department  of  Tarata,  because 
that  resolution  is  destined  to  improve  the  general  con- 
ditions of  life  in  the  district  mentioned.  I  remark  to 
Your  Excellency  that  no  measure  that  disclosed  the 
intent  not  to  hold  the  plebiscite  can  be  well  received 
by  my  Government:  Because  of  that  plan,  I  had  the 
honor  to  call  Your  Excellency's  attention  to  the  fact 
that  Peru  had  lodged  a  protest,  shortly  after  the  sign- 
ing of  the  Treaty  of  Peace,  because  the  Government  of 
Chile  had  extended,  without  any  right  whatsoever,  the 
occupation  to  a  part  of  the  province  of  Tarata.  This 
remonstrance,  which  I  now  reiterate,  does  not  imply, 
as  Your  Excellency  says,  that  Peru  has  any  doubt  of 
the  result  of  the  plebiscite.    The  result  would  not  be 


443 

doubtful,  if  the  act  were  accomplished  with  due  recti- 
tude, but  this  supposition  does  not  base  on  law  the 
thesis  that  the  occupation  of  the  districts  of  Tarata  is 
legitimate,  just  as  it  would  not  have  based  on  it  a 
greater  expansion,  if  it  had  been  carried  into  effect. 

I  must,  therefore,  perform  the  duty  of  insisting  on 
the  steps  begun  in  my  former  communication  and  on 
requesting  Your  Excellency  to  bear  in  mind  the 
seriousness  of  the  measures  that  have  been  carried  out 
recently  by  the  authorities  of  Tacna  and  Arica.  My 
Government  once  more  entertains  the  hope,  in  spite 
of  the  contents  of  Your  Excellency's  note,  that  the 
Government  of  Chile  will  remedy  the  abuses  of  which 
those  authorities  are  guilty,  will  stop  the  persecution 
of  the  parish  priests,  withdraw  the  prohibition  of  the 
public  exercise  of  Catholic  practices,  prevent  the  sys- 
tematic hostility  manifested  toward  Peruvians  and 
allay  the  public  anxiety  caused  by  the  steps  that  are 
without  explanation  taken  in  connection  with  the 
negotiations  set  on  foot  for  the  establishment  of  the 
bases  of  the  plebiscitary  regulations. 

My  Government  appreciates  very  sincerely  the  ex- 
pression of  the  Chilean  desire  to  arrive  at  a  close 
friendship  with  Peru :  an  expression  to  which  the  last 
part  of  Your  Excellency's  note  is  devoted.  This  de- 
sire is  ours  also,  under  conditions  of  absolute  sincer- 
ity: a  reason  why  we  have  omitted  no  effort  on  every 
occasion  to  try  to  persuade  the  Government  of  Chile 
that  it  is  in  its  power  to  remove  the  only  difficulty  to 
which  allusion  has  been  made,  by  strictly  discharging 
the  solemn  engagement  relative  to  the  fate  of  the  oc- 
cupied provinces,  and  by  respecting  the  vote  of  their 
populations.  In  order  to  secure  the  union  of  the  two 
countries,  which  would  be  so  productive  of  good  to 
both  of  them,  it  would  be  necessary,  on  the  part  of 


444 

Peru,  according  to  Your  Excellency 's  indication,  ' '  that 
she  contemplate  the  reality  of  things,"  or,  by  implica- 
tion, that  she  renounce,  wholly  or  partially,  the  right 
that  belongs  to  her.  If  the  reality  of  things  were,  as 
Your  Excellency  insinuates,  the  absolute  purpose  of 
Chile  to  maintain  her  possession,  it  would  be  necessary 
to  conclude  that  the  agreement  of  the  two  countries 
and  their  consequent  close  cordiality  would  be  possible 
solely  by  an  exclusive  sacrifice  made  by  Peru. 

Be  persuaded,  Your  Excellency,  that  we  shall  never 
voluntarily  abandon,  whatever  the  inducement  offered 
us,  a  territory  that  constitutes  an  integral  part  of  the 
nation  and  one  whose  history  has  been  an  element  of 
burs  ever  since  we  have  enjoyed  an  independent  ex- 
istence. The  Peruvian  national  aspiration  will  never 
bhange  in  this  respect,  because  it  must  inevitably  be 
so  in  order  to  be  in  harmony  with  the  patriotic  con- 
stancy and  abnegation  of  her  sons. 

Chile,  on  the  other  hand,  would  have  to  make  no 
sacrifice  whatsoever,  either  of  her  ancient  territory 
or  of  that  which  she  acquired  in  martial  strife.  It 
would  be  sufficient  for  her  to  yield  to  the  clear-cut  pro- 
visions of  the  written  Treaty. 

The  full  cordiality  thus  secured  would  have  the  solid 
foundation  of  justice.  That  noble  aim  is  cherished  to- 
day by  all  the  civilized  nations  that  have  regard  for 
the  maintenance  and  increase  of  their  prestige.  It 
ought  also  to  be  cherished  by  Chile  in  order  to  foster 
the  laudable  and  definitive  accord  that  Your  Excellency 
designates  and  proposes. 

I  am  pleased  to  take  this  opportunity  to  offer  to 
Your  Excellency  the  assurances  of  my  highest  and 
most  distinguished  consideration. 

M.  F.  Pokkas. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 


445 

Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile,  to  Minister 
of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru. 

[Translation.] 

Santiago,  March  3,  1910. 
Mr.  Minister: 

My  Government  has  in  its  possession  the  communi- 
cation that  Your  Excellency  has  seen  fit  to  address 
to  me  under  date  of  December  23d  last,  in  which  you 
insist  on  the  representations  that  have  been  elicited 
from  Your  Excellency's  Government  by  certain  mea- 
sures adopted  by  mine  in  the  territories  of  Tacna 
and  Arica. 

Your  Excellency  declares  that,  after  your  first  com- 
munication— Your  Excellency  doubtless  alludes  to  the 
note  of  September  30th  last — other  occurrences  have 
taken  place  in  the  province  of  Tacna  as  serious  as 
the  closing  of  some  parishes,  the  proclamation  of  the 
law  that  extends  to  that  province  the  application  ot 
the  colonization  laws  and  the  early  creation  of  the 
department  of  Tarata:  serious  occurrences  which 
4 'reveal,  besides,  in  a  very  accentuated  manner,  the 
design  of  hostility  with  which  are  inspired  the  Chilean 
authorities  that  are  in  charge  of  the  public  administra- 
tion of  that  territory." 

Your  Excellency  particularly  designates  as  such  the 
emigration  of  Peruvian  laborers,  which  Your  Excel- 
lency qualifies  as  compulsory;  the  creation  of  certain 
industries  similar  to  others  already  established  that 
belong  to  persons  of  Peruvian  nationality;  and,  finally, 
the  closing  of  the  parochial  churches  of  Tacna  on 
account  of  the  lamentable  death  of  Seiior  Andia,  the 
virtuous  parish  priest. 

Your  Excellency  then  sets  forth  the  reasons  that 
induce  you  to  regard  as  restricted  the  powers  that 


446 

the  Treaty  of  Ancon  conferred  on  my  country  in 
the  province  mentioned  and  as  limited  the  applica- 
tion of  Chilean  legislation;  insisting  on  affirming 
that  the  period  fixed  for  the  sovereignty  of  Chile  in 
Tacna  and  Arica  has  expired;  and,  perhaps,  merely 
for  the  purpose  of  bringing  into  greater  relief  ar- 
guments, in  reality  without  importance,  Your  Excel- 
lency qualifies  motives,  intentions  and  purposes  of 
my  Government,  thus  entering  on  ground  forbidden 
by  the  usual  practices  of  international  courtesy. 

Your  Excellency  maintains  that  you  share  with  my 
Government,  under  conditions  of  absolute  sincerity, 
the  desire  to  strengthen  the  friendship  of  our  re- 
spective countries;  but,  at  the  same  time,  Your  Ex- 
cellency adds  that  I  ought  to  be  persuaded  that  Peru 
will  "  never  voluntarily  abandon,  whatever  the  induce- 
ment offered  us,  a  territory  that  forms  an  integral 
part  of  the  nation  and  one  whose  history  has  been 
an  element  of  ours  ever  since  we  have  enjoyed  an 
independent  existence. "  "The  Peruvian  national 
aspiration, ' '  Your  Excellency  says, ' '  will  never  change 
in  this  respect,  because  it  must  inevitably  be  so  in 
order  to  be  in  harmony  with  the  patriotic  constancy 
and  abnegation  of  her  sons." 

"Chile,  on  the  other  hand,"  Your  Excellency  con- 
tinues, "would  have  to  make  no  sacrifice  whatsoever, 
either  of  her  ancient  territory  or  of  that  which  she 
acquired  in  martial  strife.  It  would  be  sufficient  for 
her  to  yield  to  the  clear-cut  provisions  of  the  written 
Treaty." 

Your  Excellency  ends  by  saying  that  "the  full  cor- 
diality thus  secured  would  have  the  solid  foundation 
of  justice;"  that  "that  noble  aim  is  cherished  to-day 
by  all  the  civilized  nations  that  have  regard  for  the 
maintenance  and  increase  of  their  prestige,"  and  that 


447 

"it  ought  also  to  be  cherished  by  Chile  in  order  to 
foster  the  laudable  and  definitive  accord  that  Your 
Excellency  designates  and  proposes/ ' 

Above  all,  I  ought  to  make  it  clear  to  Your  Excel- 
lency that  the  words  with  which  you  terminate  the 
communication  mentioned  do  not  faithfully  interpret 
the  desire  that  you  cherish,  as  Your  Excellency  has 
been  pleased  to  express  it,  of  strengthening  friendship 
between  Peru  and  Chile,  because  this  noble  purpose 
is  not  in  harmony  with  the  repetition  of  views,  already 
uttered  by  His  Excellency  Senor  Leguia,  in  his  last 
message,  relative  to  the  justice  on  which,  in  order  to 
maintain  and  increase  its  prestige,  my  Government 
ought  to  base  its  relations  with  Your  Excellency's. 

In  the  note  sent  to  Your  Excellency,  occasioned  by 
that  message,  I  said  that  justice  is  not  defined  by 
one  of  the  parties  in  litigation  and  that  he  that  up- 
holds his  own  rights  does  not  lessen  his  prestige. 

Your  Excellency's  Government  has  invariably 
stamped  mine  as  wanting  in  ideas  of  international 
justice  and  as  disinclined  to  fulfill  treaties,  merely 
because  it  does  not  consider,  like  that  of  Your  Excel- 
lency, that  the  first  of  such  notions  consists  in  deliv- 
ering to  Peru  what  does  not  belong  to  her,  either  in 
point  of  fact  or  in  point  of  law;  and  because,  in  the 
second  place,  it  upholds  an  interpretation  of  the  stipu- 
lations relative  to  the  celebration  of  the  plebiscite  in 
a  more  ample  manner  and,  above  all,  more  in  confor- 
mity with  historical  precedents  in  analogous  cases. 

With  the  same  or  a  better  right,  my  Government 
could  attribute  to  a  disregard  of  the  immutable  prin- 
ciples of  justice  the  design,  hitherto  invariable,  of 
Your  Excellency 's  Government,  not  to  accept  any  other 
solution  of  the  problem  pending  than  the  surrender, 
frankly  or  covertly,  directly  or  indirectly,  of  the  ter- 


448 

ritories  of  Tacna  and  Arica;  and  with  evident  reason 
I  might  demonstrate  that  it  is  in  Peru  that  there 
exists  the  true  opposition  to  the  fulfillment  of  a  treaty 
that  Your  Excellency  and  your  worthy  predecessors  al- 
ways invoke,  while  interpreting  it  erroneously. 

Nevertheless,  I  shall  not  enter  into  that  realm, 
which  would  involve  us  in  futile  recriminations,  with- 
out affording  us  the  opportunity  that  Chile  -desires 
of  settling  the  question  pending. 

On  repeated  occasions — before  and  after  the  inter- 
ruption suffered  in  1901,  on  the  initiative  of  Your 
Excellency's  Government,  by  diplomatic  relations  be- 
tween Chile  and  Peru,  and  during  the  time  when  they 
were  resumed,  by  the  invitation  that  my  Government 
gave  to  Your  Excellency's  to  this  effect  in  1905 — the 
Government  of  Peru  has  invariably  formulated  the 
same  "doctrines  as  those  based,  in  Your  Excellency's 
last  communication,  on  the  scope  and  interpretation  of 
the  provisions  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon. 

The  deference  that  my  Government  is  resolved  to 
show  always  to  Peru  has  induced  it  to  reply  over 
and  over  again  to  arguments  and  allegations,  several 
times  repeated  and  as  often  refuted,  without  adopting 
the  attitude,  only  too  well  justified  by  the  futility  of 
its  efforts,  of  confining  itself  to  a  simple  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  receipt  of  them. 

However,  Your  Excellency's  Government  is  not 
satisfied  to  insist  on  erroneous  interpretations  of  the 
Treaty  that  governs  at  present  the  political  relations 
of  our  respective  countries,  but,  going  further  and 
violating  its  express  stipulations  as  to  the  exercise 
of  sovereignty  of  Chile  in  Tacna  and  Arica,  it  at- 
tempts to  intermeddle  in  all  the  acts  of  internal  ad- 
ministration that  my  Government  exercises  there,  and 
it  protests  against  each  and  all  of  the  political  and 


449 

administrative  measures  that  my  Government  intro- 
duces in  the  exercise  of  its  rights  and  in  the  perform- 
ance of  its  duties.  It  would  seem  that,  in  the  opin- 
ion of  the  Government  of  Peru,  everything  that  tends 
to  alter  the  existing  state  of  affairs  in  that  region  is 
reprehensible,  and  whether  it  be  a  question  of  restric- 
tive measures  demanded  by  the  conduct  of  certain 
public  functionaries  or  a  case  of  closing  the  parochial 
churches  or  of  acts  that  stimulate  the  commercial, 
manufacturing  or  agricultural  development  of  those 
territories — the  former,  because  they  oppress,  the  lat- 
ter, because  they  foster — Your  Excellency's  Govern- 
ment considers  everything  as  an  attack  on  the  even- 
tual rights  that  it  alleges. 

No  sooner  are  plans  made  for  the  construction  of 
an  international  railway  that  would  restore  to  the 
territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica  the  former  importance 
their  international  trade  with  Bolivia  gave  them  for 
many  years  and  that  would  therefore  bestow  upon 
their  inhabitants  inestimable  economic  advantages, 
than  Your  Excellency's  Government  protests  and 
qualifies  that  universally  beneficial  measure  as  an 
infringement. 

When  my  Government  exercised  the  constitutional 
right  of  patronage  in  order  to  put  a  stop  to  the  des- 
ignation of  parochial  priests  that  did  not  always  carry 
to  the  faithful  of  Tacna  and  Arica  peace  of  soul  and 
the  example  of  their  virtues,  Your  Excellency's  Gov- 
ernment has  likewise  protested  and  considered  op- 
pressive and  exceptional  a  measure  of  evident  moral 
benefit,  demanded  by  the  fundamental  Charter  of  the 
Republic. 

When  the  aid  of  the  State  is  granted  to  individuals 
to  enable  them  to  introduce  new  industries  into  Tacna 
and  Arica  and  to  foster  some  that  are  in  a  rudi- 


450 

mentary  condition  to-day,  Your  Excellency's  Govern- 
ment protests  and  considers  the  measure  prejudicial 
to  the  interests  of  their  inhabitants,  who,  without  any 
doubt,  would  receive  by  means  of  it  the  direct  and 
indirect  benefits  that  result  from  the  opening  of  new 
sources  of  production. 

When  the  creation  of  the  department  of  Tarata  was 
projected  in  order  to  improve  the  administrative  ser- 
vices, by  increasing  police  vigilance  and  by  extending 
the  postal  and  telegraph  services  and,  in  short,  by 
making  the  action  of  the  authorities  most  efficacious, 
Your  Excellency's  Government  protests  and  regards 
the  contemplated  measure  a  violation  of  its  rights. 

Your  Excellency  will  not  be  surprised  that  my  Gov- 
ernment attaches  only  a  relative  importance  to  the 
demands  that  Your  Excellency's  Government  itself 
has  robbed  of  efficacy  by  pressing  them  into  service 
for  everything,  constantly  and  systematically. 

Permit  me  to  remind  Your  Excellency,  in  this  re- 
spect, of  the  communications  sent  to  my  Government 
on  November  14  and  December  15  and  24,  1900;  Jan- 
uary 19  and  30  and  March  7,  1901;  July  16,  1904;  Feb- 
ruary 18  and  April  25,  1905 ;  May  8,  1908 ;  September 
30  last ;  and,  finally,  the  one  to  which  I  am  replying. 

All  these  communications  have  been  answered  by 
my  Government  in  others  that  bear  the  dates  of  Jan- 
uary 19,  February  18  and  March  13,  1901 ;  August 
12,  1904;  March  15  and  June  5,  1905;  March  25,  1908; 
and  in  publications  with  which  Your  Excellency  is 
acquainted. 

In  the  correspondence  conducted  by  Your  Excel- 
lency's Government,  to  which  I  have  just  alluded,  it 
has  been  demonstrated  in  a  manner  that  Peru  has 
not  been  able  to  refute  hitherto  that,  according  to 
the  law  and  the  spirit  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  the 
territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica  were  ceded  to  Chile  in 


451 

full  and  absolute  sovereignty,  without  any  limitation 
as  to  its  exercise,  and  limited  only  in  regard  to  its 
duration  by  the  event  of  a  plebiscite  called  after  the 
passage  of  ten  years. 

If  the  plebiscite  has  not  yet  been  effected,  it  is  be- 
cause Your  Excellency's  Government  attempts  to  re- 
strict the  right  of  suffrage  by  destroying  the  very 
essence  of  the  plebiscitary  act,  which,  as  its  name  in- 
dicates and  diplomatic  precedents  confirm,  must  be 
popular ;  and  because,  besides,  Peru  demands  that  Chile 
shall  suspend,  until  it  shall  be  effected,  the  exercise 
of  a  sovereignty  that  only  the  adverse  result  of  the 
plebiscite  itself  could  extinguish. 

Chile  is  not,  as  Your  Excellency  says,  the  obstacle 
to  the  accomplishment  of  the  plebiscite  because  she 
has  not  decided  to  come  to  an  agreement  with  Peru. 
In  affirming  this,  Your  Excellency  forgets  her  re- 
iterated proposals  always  rejected. 

As  for  the  rest,  I  ought  to  remind  Your  Excellency 
that  the  plebiscites  recorded  by  history  prove  that 
they  are  means  conceived  by  Governments  to  soften, 
by  the  appearance  of  popular  suffrage,  a  cession  or 
an  annexation  agreed  on  beforehand,  thus  avoiding, 
as  far  as  possible,  wounding  the  national  sentiment 
of  the  country  thus  dismembered.    . 

The  reason  is  obvious :  governments  can  not  se- 
riously consent  to  leave  to  the  eventuality  of  a  vote 
the  fate  of  a  territory,  capable,  as  in  this  case,  of 
constituting  the  security  of  its  frontiers  and  the  com- 
pensation for  sacrifices  of  blood  and  money. 

The  preliminaries,  the  alternatives  and  the  incidents 
of  the  diplomatic  negotiations  that  resulted  in  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon  demonstrate  in  good  faith  that  its 
promoters  had  recourse  to  the  plebiscitary  formula 
as  the  only  means  designated  by  history  of  satisfying 


452 

the  territorial  demands  of  Chile  without  deeply  wound- 
ing a  national  sentiment  of  Peru,  of  which  certain 
elements  made  capital  in  order  to  overthrow  the  tot- 
tering Government  of  the  illustrious  General  Iglesias, 
who  signed  it. 

Your  Excellency's  Government  has  recognized  in 
the  circular  that  he  addressed  to  the  friendly  powers, 
under  date  of  May  26,  1901,  that  Chile  always  set 
up,  as  an  immutable  requisite  for  signing  the  Treaty 
in  question,  the  cession  of  the  territories  of  Tacna 
and  Arica,  considered  paramount  to  the  security  of 
her  frontiers.  In  truth,  Your  Excellency's  Govern- 
ment says,  in  the  circular  mentioned  in  explanation 
of  the  causes  that  had  led  to  the  rupture  of  its  re- 
lations with  my  Government,  that  ' '  the  victories  after- 
ward'7— Your  Excellency's  Government  refers  at  that 
moment  to  the  month  of  October,  1880,  and  to  the 
conferences  on  the  Lackawanna — "achieved  by  Chile 
aroused  greater  ambitions,  and  a  year  later,  in  1881, 
the  cession  of  Tacna  and  Arica  was  an  exigency  pre- 
sented as  a  condition  sine  qua  non  of  peace  in  the 
negotiations  that  were  opened  during  the  following 
two  years." 

Nevertheless,  my  Government,  having  in  support 
of  its  contention  innumerable  precedents  and  even 
the  history  of  the  negotiations  of  the  Treaty  them- 
selves, and  desiring  to  forget  past  discords  and 
strengthen  the  relations  demanded  by  nature  and  ci- 
vilization for  the  two  countries,  has  sought  in  the 
holding  of  the  plebiscite  the  satisfaction  of  its  legiti- 
mate exigencies,  and  it  only  asks  that  the  act  be 
essentially  popular  and  that  it  be  effected  without 
violating  for  a  single  instant,  by  interrupting  them, 
its  rights  as  a  sovereign  in  the  territories  of  Tacna 
and  Arica. 


453 

My  Government  does  not  abandon  the  hope  of  see- 
ing that  of  Your  Excellency  ready  to  come  to  an  un- 
derstanding on  a  basis  that  the  serene  judgment  of 
the  nations  that  behold  us  to-day,  and  to-morrow,  and 
history,  will  esteem  to  be  just,  equitable  and  even 
generous. 

Before  entering  on  a  ground,  more  practical,  and, 
above  all,  more  effective  for  the  object  pursued,  of 
settling  at  once  this  difficulty  that  has  continued  for 
more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century,  as  an  expression  of 
the  cordiality  of  the  relations  that  my  Government 
would  always  maintain  with  Your  Excellency's,  I  will 
proceed  to  give  you  a  brief  explanation,  if  not  of  the 
right,  which  is  unquestionable,  at  least  of  the  motives 
that  induce  my  Government  to  adopt  in  Tacna  and 
Arica  the  measures  that  Your  Excellency  qualifies 
as  serious  acts,  in  the  communication  to  which  I  am 
replying. 

Of  the  representations  that  Your  Excellency  makes, 
none  surprises  my  Government  more  than  the  one  rel- 
ative to  the  introduction  of  new  industries  designed 
to  be  developed  in  an  environment  free  of  competition ; 
and  the  mere  fact  that  Your  Excellency  concerns 
yourself  with  it  indicates  that  you  deem  it  possible 
to  restrict  freedom  of  trade:  a  fundamental  basis  of 
the  progress  of  nations. 

The  Government,  convinced  of  the  importance  to 
the  future  of  the  Eepublic  of  the  growth  of  its  man- 
ufacturing industries,  patronizes  and  fosters  them 
throughout  the  whole  extent  of  its  territory  by  utiliz- 
ing the  different  means  that  the  laws  place  at  its  dis- 
posal; and,  just  as  in  the  other  provinces  prosperity 
is  enjoyed  by  the  manufacturers  of  textiles,  footwear, 
cloth,  steel,  sugar,  paper  and  tobacco,  so  it  hopes, 
not  without  reason,  that  in  Tacna,  those  will  thrive 


454 

that  have  recently  opened  their  doors,  thus  cheapen- 
ing for  consumers  the  price  of  the  articles  they  elab- 
orate and  creating  new  centers  of  activity. 

My  Government  is  performing  the  duties  inherent 
to  the  sovereignty  it  exercises  over  those  territories 
in  stimulating  and  fostering  the  establishment  of  new 
industries  and  it  considers  that  even  in  the  cases  of 
distinctly  litigious  territories  it  is  permitted  to  foster 
industries  that  strengthen  the  rights  in  litigation. 

To  prove  this  assertion  I  need  only  to  appeal  to 
the  nobility  of  Your  Excellency's  sentiments,  which 
must  recognize,  as  is  true,  that  Peru  has  stimulated 
by  all  the  means  within  her  power  the  creation  of 
Peruvian  interests  in  all  the  territories  that  she  has 
litigated  and  is  litigating  with  the  border  nations. 

In  the  province  of  Tacna  itself,  Your  Excellency's 
Government  patronizes  and  fosters  not  only  the  ag- 
ricultural, commercial  and  industrial  interests  of  Peru- 
vian citizens,  but  also  direct  means  of  active  pro- 
paganda to  keep  alive  its  former  relations,  which  my 
Government  has  tolerated  hitherto,  in  spite  of  the 
abuses  that  have  been  committed  to  vilify  it,  thanks 
to  this  tolerance. 

Your  Excellency's  spirit  of  equity  will  doubtless 
lead  you  to  recognize  that  it  is  impossible  to  qualify 
as  serious  and  abusive  what  Your  Excellency's  Gov- 
ernment practises  with  still  greater  zeal. 

Your  Excellency  again  protests,  in  the  communi- 
cation to  which  I  am  replying,  against  the  closing  of 
the  parochial  churches  and  the  fact  that  it  has  been 
made  impossible  for  Sehor  Flores  Mestres  to  continue 
to  exercise  his  functions  as  a  parish  priest. 

Your  Excellency  insists  on  affirming  that  the  pro- 
vince of  Tacna  is  subject  to  an  exceptional  regime 
that  violates  the  express  and  definite  provisions  of 
the  Treatv. 


455 

To  refute  this  assertion  of  Your  Excellency's  it 
will  be  sufficient  for  me  to  remind  you  once  more  of 
the  prescriptions  of  the  Political  Constitution  that 
govern  the  relations  between  the  Church  and  the  State : 
prescriptions  which,  like  all  others,  are  in  force  in  the 
province  of  Tacna  by  virtue  of  the  very  Treaty  that 
Your  Excellency  invokes. 

The  hope  that  a  tolerance  toward  the  Peruvians, 
which  I  do  not  hesitate  to  qualify  as  excessive,  would 
be  reciprocated  toward  the  Chilean  priests  by  the 
respective  Diocesan,  induced  my  Government,  for  a 
number  of  years,  to  be  less  strict  than  it  is  to-day 
in  its  patronage  demands.  Disappointed  in  this  hope, 
and  the  private  conduct  of  some  of  the  parochial  priests 
being  carried  to  the  verge  of  scandal,  my  Govern- 
ment is  under  the  unavoidable  moral  obligation  to 
exact'  compliance  with  all  the  constitutional  require- 
ments in  their  appointments. 

Your  Excellency  will  bear  in  mind  that  if  on  the 
Diocesan  of  Arequipa  might  be  placed  the  respon- 
sibility for  the  ills  endured  by  the  faithful  Peru- 
vians that  constitute  his  flock,  my  Government,  in  its 
condescendence,  would  be  at  least  responsible  for  the 
ills  falling  to  the  lot  of  the   Chileans. 

The  Chilean  population  of  Tacna  and  Arica  is  con- 
siderable at  the  present  time,  and  Your  Excellency 
yourself  manifests  the  displeasure  with  which  you  be- 
hold it  increase  from  day  to  day,  in  proportion  as 
the  Peruvian  population  diminishes.  Nothing  could 
be  more  just  than  to  see  to  it  that  their  religious 
needs  shall  be  met  by  priests  of  their  own  nation- 
ality, or  at  least  such  as  exercise  their  ministry  with 
exclusively  religious  and  charitable  designs. 

If  Your  Excellency's  Government  esteems  the  Peru- 
vian inhabitants   of   Tacna  and  Arica   oppressed  in 


456 

their  religious  beliefs  because  it  is  today  prohibited, 
pursuant  to  definite  constitutional  provisions,  to  exer- 
cise parochial  functions  without  the  respective  su- 
preme authorization,  Your  Excellency  yourself  will 
consider  how  thoroughly  right  my  Government  is  in 
considering  the  Chilean  inhabitants  oppressed  in 
theirs,  when  the  Right  Illustrious  Bishop  of  Arequipa 
declines,  contrary  to  the  express  dictates  of  canonical 
law,  to  grant  licenses  to  Chilean  priests  for  the  exer- 
cise of  their  duties  as  such. 

My  Government  has  never  been  indifferent  to  what 
might  disturb  the  peace  of  consciences.  It  under- 
stands that  the  conflict  aroused  in  Tacna  by  the  stub- 
bornness of  the  Diocesan  of  Arequipa  threatens  to 
deprive  Chileans,  Peruvians  and  other  foreigners  of 
the  aids  and  comforts  of  the  religion  they  profess,  and 
in  this  emergency  its  purpose  is  to  seek  a  conciliatory 
remedy  that  will  put  an  end  to  it  without  a  diminu- 
tion of  the  rights  or  a  lessening  of  the  dignity  of. 
either  country. 

The  designs  of  an  essentially  spiritual  character 
entertained  by  the  Holy  See  would  make  it  possible 
to  intrust  to  it,  until  its  definitive  nationality  shall 
be  determined,  the  religious  jurisdiction  of  the  pro- 
vince of  Tacna,  thus  removing  it  from  the  influence  of 
political  interests  contended  for  by  Peru  and  Chile. 
A  foreign  vicar,  designated  by  the  supreme  head  of 
the  Church  would  administer  the  spiritual  interests 
of  the  province,  and  the  priests  of  all  nationalities 
resident  in  Tacna  would  have  in  him  the  guaranties 
they  demand. 

Your  Excellency's  Government  must  share  with 
mine  the  full  confidence  that  it  reposes  in  the  rec- 
titude of  intentions  and  the  serene  impartiality  of 
the  Holy  See,  and  if  it  really  desires  for  the  inhabi- 


457 

tants  of  Tacna  and  Arica  the  greatest  sum  of  moral 
well-being,  it  will  welcome  unhesitatingly — I  hope — 
the  proposal  that  I  formulate. 

This  fundamental  basis  being  agreed  on,  it  will  be 
easy  to  come  to  an  understanding  to  grant  to  Chilean, 
Peruvian  and  other  foreign  priests  equal  facilities 
and  guaranties  in  the  exercise  of  their  sacred  func- 
tions in  those  territories. 

My  Government  laments  that  a  controversy  with 
Your  Excellency,  which  ought  to  be  confined  to  reach- 
ing an  adjustment  as  to  the  bases  of  the  plebiscite 
that  is  to  determine  the  definitive  nationality  of  Tacna 
and  Arica  should  be  prolonged  by  means  of  diplomatic 
communications . 

In  its  communication  of  March  25,  1908,  my  Govern- 
ment proposed  to  that  of  Your  Excellency  different 
means  of  arriving  at  a  perfect  accord  between  the 
two  countries,  and,  among  them,  the  holding  of  a 
plebiscite  under  more  than  equitable  conditions. 

Unfortunately,  its  proposals  were  not  well  received, 
and  Your  Excellency's  Government  declared  that,  for 
the  present,  it  desires  to  confine  itself  to  reaching  an 
understanding  with  mine  as  to  the  conditions  under 
which  the  plebiscitary  act  ought  to  be  effected. 

Out  of  regard  for  cordiality  and  in  interpretation  of 
a  national  feeling,  my  Government  desires  once  more 
to  be  deferential  to  that  of  Your  Excellency,  and,  pass- 
ing over  juridical  considerations  and  historical  pre- 
cedents that  determine  the  true  scope  of  the  plebi- 
scitary act,  it  proposes  that  it  be  effected  on  the  fol- 
lowing bases: 

1.  The  plebiscite  will  take  place  six  months  after 
the    exchange  of  the  ratifications  of  the  protocol. 

2.  All  the  plebiscitary  acts  will  be  supervised  by  a 
"Directive  Board' '  and  carried  into  effect  by  "Reg- 


458 

istration  Committees ' '  and  "Receiving  Committees. " 

3.  Both  the  Directive  Board,  which  will  function  in 
the  city  of  Tacna,  and  the  Registration  and  Receiving 
Committees,  which  will  function  in  Tacna  and  Arica, 
will  be  composed  of  three  members,  namely :  one  mem- 
ber appointed  by  the  Government  of  Chile,  another 
designated  by  the  Government  of  Peru  and  a  third 
elected  by  the  Consular  Corps  resident  in  Tacna  or 
in  Arica,  by  a  majority  of  votes. 

The  chairmanships  of  the  Directive  Board  and  of 
the  Registration  and  Receiving  Committees  will  be- 
long to  the  member  appointed  by  the  Government 
of  Chile. 

4.  It  will  be  the  duty  of  the  Directive  Board: 

a.  To  make  up  and  publish  the  general  list  of  all 
the  voters,  in  conformity  with  the  partial  lists  of  the 
Registration  Committees ; 

b.  To  exercise  the  general  scrutiny,  to  announce  the 
result  of  the  plebiscite  and  to  communicate  it  to  the 
Governments  of  Peru  and  Chile; 

c.  To  settle  all  doubts  and  questions  that  may  arise 
in  the  registrations,  votes  and  other  plebiscitary  acts ; 

d.  To  adopt  all  the  measures  that  shall  assure  the 
correctness  and  seriousness  of  the  plebiscitary  pro- 
ceedings and  public  order  during  their  accomplish- 
ment. 

5.  The  Registration  Committees  will  be  installed, 
one  in  Tacna  and  the  other  in  Arica,  within  eight 
days  after  the  constitution  of  the  Directive  Board, 
and  they  will  function  for  twenty  consecutive  days, 
from  ten  in  the  forenoon  until  four  in  the  afternoon, 
inscribing  in  the  lists  the  names  of  persons  that  re- 
quest registration  and  meet  the  requirements  indi- 
cated in  the  following  section. 

6.  Chileans,  Peruvians  and  foreigners  that  fulfill  the 
following  conditions  will  have  the  right  to  vote: 


459 

a.  Twenty-one  years  of  age; 

b.  Ability  to  read  and  write; 

c.  Residence  of  six  months  in  the  province. 

7.  The  Registration  Committees  will  deliver  to  each 
person  a  registration  ticket,  which  the  latter  must 
present  afterward  to  the  Receiving  Committees. 

8.  In  case  the  Registration  Committee  shall  refuse 
to  register  a  person,  it  must  note  in  the  minutes  of 
the  session  of  the  day  the  name  of  the  person  re- 
jected and  the  reason  of  his  exclusion,  and  he  will 
have  the  right  to  demand  a  copy  of  the  part  of  the 
minutes  that  pertain  to  him. 

9.  Following  the  last  registration,  the  members  of 
the  Registration  Committee  will  daily  stamp  their  sig- 
natures, and  they  will  place  above  them,  in  letters, 
the  number  of  persons  registered  during  the  day. 

10.  When  the  period  for  registration  shall  ter- 
minate, the  Directive  Board  will  cause  the  lists  to 
be  published  within  the  next  eight  days  following, 
in  the  newspapers  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  and  on  pla- 
cards that  will  be  displayed  in  the  public  buildings. 

11.  Within  the  fifteen  days  that  follow  this  publi- 
cation, the  persons  that  protest  against  their  re- 
jection may  appear  before  the  Directive  Board,  and 
after  the  termination  of  this  period,  the  list  shall 
stand  definitively  constituted,  with  the  changes  ac- 
corded by  it. 

12.  After  the  making  up  of  the  definitive  list,  the 
Directive  Board  will  designate,  within  the  following 
eight  days,  the  date  on  which  the  Receiving  Commit- 
tees are  to  function.  They  will  function  on  the  day 
set,  from  eight  in  the  forenoon  until  six  in  the  after- 
noon, and  they  will  be  composed  of  the  same  members 
as  those  that  have  formed  the  Registration  Commit- 
tees. 


460 

13.  The  voters  will  show  their  registration  tickets 
at  the  moment  of  voting,  and  they  will  be  taken  up 
by  the  Receiving  Committees  and  exchanged  for  cer- 
tificates in  which  it  shall  appear  that  the  person  has 
voted. 

14.  When  reception  of  the  votes  has  ceased,  the 
Committee  will  make  out  a  partial  scrutiny  and  de- 
liver it  to  the  Directive  Board,  at  the  same  time  as  the 
minutes,  the  lists,  the  unused  registration  tickets  and 
the  other  documents  that  may  be  in  its  possession. 

15.  Within  the  following  twenty-four  hours,  the  Di- 
rective Board  will  make  a  general  scrutiny,  at  a  single 
session,  until  it  shall  proclaim  the  result. 

16.  The  Directive  Board  and  the  Registration  and 
Receiving  Committees  will  enjoy  the  most  absolute 
independence  in  the  exercise  of  their  functions,  and 
the  chairman  of  each  of  them  will  take  the  necessary 
measures  to  maintain  order  and  to  safeguard  the  free- 
dom of  the  voters. 

17.  The  Directive  Board  and  the  Registration  and 
Receiving  Committees  will  be  able  to  function  only 
with  the  majority  of  the  members  'then  present  that 
compose  them,  and  in  case  of  the  incapacity  of  any 
member,  he  will  be  replaced  during  his  incapacitation 
by  the  person  designated  by  the  Government  or  author- 
ity that  appointed  the  person  incapacitated. 

18.  All  resolutions  will  be  decided  by  a  majority 
of  votes. 

19.  A  special  protocol,  which  will  be  signed  simul- 
taneously with  the  one  that  fixes  the  conditions  of 
the  plebiscite,  will  determine  the  administrative  acts 
of  the  Government  of  Chile  and  the  rights  acquired 
by  third  parties,  which  Peru  engages  to  respect,  in 
case  the  result  shall  be  favorable  to  her,  as  well  as 
the  pecuniary  indemnities  that  may  be  due  them  on 
whatsoever  ground. 


461 

Proposals  as  liberal  and  equitable  as  these  ought 
to  merit  a  frank  and  favorable  reception  by  Your 
Excellency's  Government,  if  it  desires  to  settle  the 
pending  difficulty  in  conformity  with  the  stipulations 
of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon.  ffhe  essential  ones — those 
relative  to  the  period  in  which  the  plebiscite  ought 
to  be  held,  to  the  nationality  of  the  voters  and  other 
requirements  that  affect  them  and  to  who  is  to  pre- 
side over  the  act — are  not  new  to  Your  Excellency, 
for  they  were  formulated  already  by  the  represen- 
tative of  Chile  in  Lima. 

Your  Excellency,  in  your  communication  dated  No- 
vember 5,  saw  fit  to  make  certain  representations  that 
my  Government,  after  carefully  analyzing  them,  con- 
siders unfounded. 

I.  Your  Excellency  begins  by  objecting  to  the  period 
designated  for  holding  the  plebiscite  and  you  propose 
that  it  be  effected  immediately  after  the  signing  of 
the  protocol. 

My  Government  finds  it  impossible  to  accept  the 
arrangement  proposed  by  Your  Excellency,  because, 
among  other  reasons,  it  would  be  contrary  to  the  ex- 
press prescriptions  of  the  Political  Constitution  of  the 
State.  It  establishes  that  international  treaties  re- 
quire legislative  sanction  in  order  to  render  their  ef- 
fects binding,  and  therefore  the  protocol  contemplated 
could  only  be  considered  valid  after  the  approval  of 
both  branches  of  the  Congress. 

Your  Excellency  will  understand,  without  further 
delay,  that  the  point  of  departure  for  the  fixing  of 
the  plebiscitary  act  must  necessarily  be  the  exchange 
of  the  ratifications  of  the  protocol. 

II.  Your  Excellency  objects  to  the  residence  of  six 
months  that  my  Government  fixes  for  voters,  and  pro- 
poses to  reckon  it  from  July  1,  1907,  for  reasons  re- 
garding which  my  Government  is  ignorant. 


462 

At  first  glance  the  date  designated  by  Your  Excel- 
lency is  arbitrary,  as  it  would  not  be  in  pursuance  of 
any  known  rule  or  of  what  has  occurred  in  similar 
cases. 

A  residence  of  six  months  constitutes,  in  the  opinion 
of  my  Government,  a  sufficient  proof  of  the  will  to 
take  up  residence  in  the  territory,  which  is  all  that 
may  be  exacted  for  the  purpose  of  granting  the  right 
to  contribute  to  the  settlement  of  its  definitive  na- 
tionality. Not  even  this  was  ever  required  in  other 
plebiscites  that  have  been  held,  and  in  fixing  on  it, 
my  Government  gives  tangible  proof  of  its  sincere 
desire  to  arrive  at  an  accord  with  that  of  Your  Ex- 
cellency, which  attaches  so  much  importance  to  this 
restriction,  among  other  restrictions,  of  the  right  of 
'suffrage. 

My  Government  does  not  see  how  it  could  come 
nearer,  in  this  respect,  to  the  conditions  that  Your 
Excellency  designates. 

III.  Your  Excellency  holds  that  the  requirement  of 
being  able  to  read  and  write,  which  in  modern  times 
is  universally  legislated  in  the  law  of  suffrage,  ought 
not  to  be  required  of  voters. 

My  Government  considers  that  only  persons  that 
are  permitted,  according  to  the  legislation  of  Peru 
and  Chile,  to  exercise  electoral  rights,  are  qualified 
to  express  themselves  consciously  as  to  the  nationality 
that  may  be  more  expedient  for  the  territories  of  the 
provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

Persons  that  the  fundamental  Charters  of  the  two 
countries  exclude  from  all  share  in  the  election  of 
their  rulers  and  legislators  are  juridically  and  effec-* 
tively  incapable  of  judging  of  what  nationality  is  just 
for  the  country  in  which  they  dwell,  and  their  par- 
ticipation would  rob  the  plebiscite  of  the  seriousness 


463 

that  ought  to  characterize  an  act  of  such  tremendous 
importance. 

IV.  Your  Excellency  considers  that  foreigners  and 
even  certain  definite  groups  of  the  Chilean  collectivity 
ought  to  be  excluded  from  all  participation  in  the 
plebiscite. 

Such  a  demand  would  be  contrary,  in  the  opinion 
of  my  Government,  to  the  terms  and  stipulations  of 
the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  and  it  tends  to  destroy  the  very 
essence  of  the  plebiscite,  which,  as  its  name  indicates, 
must  be  eminently  popular.    - 

The  exclusion  of  foreigners,  comprehensible  in  in- 
ternal political  elections  that  affect  solely  the  consti- 
tution of  the  public  authorities,  is  not  justified  in  a 
plebiscite  designed  to  give  rise  to  international  effects. 

In  the  note'  that  my  Government  addressed  to  that 
of  Your  Excellency,  under  date  of  March  25,  1908, 
it  analyzed  this  question  at  length,  and  this  circum- 
stance renders  it  unnecessary  to  weary  Your  Excel- 
lency's attention  with  similar  arguments. 

Nevertheless,  I  deem  it  indispensable  to  call  Your 
Excellency's  attention  to  the  capital  importance  to 
Peru  of  the  vote  of  the  foreigners  that  live  in  Tacna 
and  Arica. 

Your  Excellency's  Government  is  aware  that  mine 
does  not  accept  arbitration  to  settle  the  question  that 
divides  us,  because  it  considers  it  included  among 
those  that  affect  vital  interests.  The  participation  of 
foreigners  in  the  plebiscitary  act  contributes  to  it 
an  important  element  exempt  from  the  national  pas- 
sions involved,  and  it  tenons,  therefore,  to  satisfy,  as 
far  as  the  nature  of  the  question  at  issue  may  permit, 
the  desire  of  Your  Excellency's  Government  to  in- 
trust its  solution  to  a  neutral. 


464 

* 

Note,  Your  Excellency,  that  in  this  case  the  neutral 
opinion  would  possess  an  especial  prestige  and  weight, 
because  it  would  emanate  from  an  entity  that  resides 
in  the  contested  region  and  is  acquainted  with  its  needs 
and  interests. 

The  exclusion  that  Your  Excellency  proposes,  of 
certain  definite  groups  of  the  Chilean  collectivity,  in- 
volves, perhaps  without  Your  Excellency's  so  intend- 
ing, a  discourtesy  that  my  Government  did  not  ex- 
pect, in  view  of  its  deferential  attitude  in  not  exclud- 
ing, under  identical  circumstances,  any  member  of 
the  Peruvian  collectivity  from  the  part  that  he  may 
desire  to  take  in  the  plebiscitary  act. 

My  Government  can  not  accept  Your  Excellency's 
proposals  to  this  effect,  which,  presented  in  Peru  with 
the  same  object,  would  have  been  rejected  by  Your 
Excellency  with  justifiable  harshness. 

V.  Your  Excellency  considers  unreasonable  the  de- 
mand of  my  Government  that  it  should  preside  over 
all  the  plebiscitary  acts,  and  you  hold  that  these  func- 
tions belong  to  the  neutral  members  of  the  Board 
and  of  the  Committees. 

Taking  its  stand  on  the  elementary  principles  of 
public  law  and  on  numerous  diplomatic  precedents, 
my  Government  could  claim  that  the  plebiscite  should 
be  effected  under  its  sole  and  exclusive  direction  and 
supervision. 

Without  abandoning  this  view  of  its  rights,  out  of 
particular  deference  to  Your  Excellency's  Govern- 
ment and  in  order  to  show  consideration  for  the 
keenest  susceptibilities  of  the  Peruvian  inhabitants 
of  Tacna  and  Arica,  it  has  proposed  and  it  does  pro- 
pose to  Your  Excellency  to  limit  its  claims  to  what 
is  strictly  demanded  by  its  character  of  sovereign  in 
those   territories,   and  hence  its   purpose   merely  to 


465 

preside  over  boards  and  committees  of  which  Peru- 
vians and  other  foreigners  will  form  a  part. 

It  would  be  impossible  therefore  for  my  Govern- 
ment to  go  further  without  lessening  a  sovereignty 
that  can  only  be  terminated  by  the  consequences  of 
the  adverse  result  of  the  plebiscite  itself. 

Recall,  Your  Excellency,  that  the  resolution  of  the 
Directive  Board  and  of  the  Registration  and  Receiv- 
ing Committees  will  be  expressed  by  a  majority  of 
the  votes,  in  conformity  with  these  bases. 

Chile  has  succeeded  in  settling  all  the  great  ques- 
tions pending  with  the  contiguous  nations,  and  what 
is  even  more  satisfactory  and  admirable,  they  were 
no  sooner  solved  than  she  sealed  with  them  an  endur- 
ing friendship.  It  only  remains  now  to  blot  out,  in 
her  relations  with  Peru,  the  last  vestige  of  past  strife, 
and  to  this  fraternal  enterprise  tend  her  efforts,  which 
she  hopes  to  see  prized  and  reciprocated. 

As  the  Republic  completes  a  century  of  existence, 
she  would  conceive  that  she  is  rendering  the  highest 
homage  to  those  that  founded  her,  if  she  were  able 
to  seal  with  Peru  a  friendship  that  they  fostered  and 
that  subsequent  vicissitudes  have  interrupted  but  have 
not  extinguished. 

It  will  be  sufficient  to  appeal  for  a  moment  to  pa- 
triotism rightly  understood,  in  order  to  find,  in  the 
fulfillment  of  the  Treaty,  the  formula  that  shall  re- 
store to  these  countries  the  cordiality  that  should  al- 
ways have  characterized  their  relations. 

May  Your  Excellency  be  inclined  to  see  in  the  bases 
suggested  the  lofty  spirit  of  justice  that  animates  my 
Government  and  the  effort  it  lavishes  to  afford  to  Peru 
indisputable  proofs  of  its  purpose,  never  shaken,  of 
carrying  into  effect  the  treaties  that  it  honors  with  its 
signature. 


466 

I  take  this  opportunity  to  reiterate  to  Your  Excel- 
lency the  assurances  of  my  high  and  most  distin- 
guished consideration. 

Agustik  Edwabds. 
To  His  Excellency, 
Senor  Meliton  Porras, 
Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru. 


Circular  of  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Chile  to 
Chilean  Legations  Abroad. 

[Translation.] 

Santiago,  March  15,  1910. 
Me.  Minister  : 

The  sensation  caused  abroad  by  the  measure  that 
the  Government  has  just  taken,  decreeing  the  expul- 
sion of  the  so-called  parish  priests  of  Tacna  and  Arica, 
induces  me  to  inform  you  in  detail  as  to  the  diplomatic 
and  juridical  facts  and  serious  motives  that  have  de- 
termined such  a  measure.  Knowing  the  facts,  you  will 
not  entertain  any  doubts  respecting  the  perfect  justi- 
fication for  that  measure  and  its  complete  legality. 

I. 

THE   FACTS. 

The  Treaty  of  Ancon,  signed  on  October  20,  1883, 
put  an  end  to  the  conflict  of  1879  and  left  under  the 
sovereignty  of  Chile,  without  any  limitations  as  to  its 
exercise,  the  old  Peruvian  provinces  of  Tacna  and 
Arica. 

Only  the  duration  of  such  sovereignty  has  the 
eventual  limitation  of  a  plebiscite  which  may  termi- 
nate it. 


•167 

This  scope  of  the  dispositions  of  the  Treaty  has  been 
and  is  disputed  by  the  Government  of  Peru,  which  con- 
siders the  exercise  of  our  sovereignty  over  Tacna  and 
Arica  to  be  limited,  and  which  even  has  maintained 
that  such  sovereignty  is  at  an  end  because  of  the  ex- 
piration of  the  term  fixed  for  the  carrying  out  of  the 
plebiscite. 

The  elemental  notion  of  sovereignty,  its  very  es- 
sence, exclude  this  interpretation  given  by  Peru  to 
the  said  depositions. 

Peru  has  not  and  could  not  have  continued  to  exer- 
cise any  authority  over  those  territories,  because 
sovereignty,  which  is  one  and  indivisible,  cannot  be 
shared  between  two. 

It  is  obvious,  likewise,  that  our  sovereignty  cannot 
be  at  an  end,  because  it  is  not  possible  to  conceive  a 
territory  without  a  sovereign,  and  because  it  was  not 
the  expiration  of  a  fixed  term,  that  would  end  such 
sovereignty,  but  only  the  event  of  a  plebiscite  register- 
ing the  will  of  the  inhabitants  of  Tacna  and  Arica  to 
the  effect  that  those  provinces  should  be  reincorpo- 
rated to  Peru. 


The  Government  that  exercises  unlimited  sover- 
eignty has  under  its  control  all  of  those  services,  civil 
as  well  as  religious,  that  produce  secular  effects.  Thus, 
both  remained,  by  virtue  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  and 
without  further  formalities,  under  the  authority  of  the 
Chilean  Government,  without  any  restrictions  whatso- 
ever. 

And  if  the  latter  exercises  all  of  its  sovereign 
rights  respecting  the  services  of  a  civil  nature,  it  is 
logical  that  it  should  exercise  them  likewise  respecting 
those  of  a  religious  nature,  in  accordance  with  those 


468 

dispositions  of  the  Constitution  that  apply  to  the  re- 
lations between  the  Church  and  the  State. 

And  the  present  conflict  is  caused  precisely  by  the 
fact  that  the  Chilean  Government  finds  obstacles  in  the 
way  of  the  exercise  of  those  rights  respecting  the  ser- 
vices of  a  religious  nature.  A  perfect  agreement  be- 
tween the  State  and  the  Church  is  essential  to  the 
ecclesiastic  services.  It  is  difficult  to  reach  such  an 
agreement  in  the  case  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  because  the 
spiritual  authority  there,  is  exercised  by  a  diocesan 
of  foreign  nationality,  while  the  political  and  admini- 
strative authority  is  exercised  by  the  Government  of 
the  Republic. 


In  those  territories  that,  by  virtue  of  the  same 
Treaty  of  Ancon,  have  been  ceded  to  Chile  by  Peru  in 
perpetuity,  and  in  the  territories  later  ceded  to  Chile 
by  Bolivia,  the  services  of  a  religious  nature  have  been 
placed  under  the  control  of  the  Chilean  ecclesiastic 
authorities,  by  virtue  of  the  same  principles  of  sover- 
eignty and  of  the  same  reasons  that  the  Chilean  Gov- 
vernment  invokes  for  the  territories  of  Tacna  and 
Arica. 

The  fact  that,  while  in  the  former  case  the  religious 
jurisdiction  has  been  adjusted  to  the  civil,  in  the  latter 
case  a  similar  solution  is  still  pending,  has  no  satis- 
factory explanation. 

The  modification  in  both  cases  is  determined  by  the 
full  and  absolute  sovereignty  of  Chile,  and  the  circum- 
stance that  in  the  case  of  Tacna  and  Arica  that  sover- 
eignty might  possibly  end,  cannot  be  considered  as  an 
essential  difference.  It  does  not  take  away  from  the 
sovereignty  any  part  either  of  its  attributes  or  of  its 
force.    Its  exercise  is  ample  as  long  as  it  may  endure. 

In  the  province  of  Tarapaca  and  in  the  old  Bolivian 


469 

littoral  the  services  of  a  religious  nature  were  sepa- 
rated from  their  old  jurisdiction,  without  any  opposi- 
tion upon  the  part  of  the  Holy  See,  and  new  ecclesias- 
tic authorities  were  created  in  harmony  with  the  civil 
jurisdiction  and  in  accordance  with  the  constitutional 
precepts  regarding  the  patronage. 

Any  opposition  to  that  change  would  have  been  con- 
sidered as  an  unmerited  offense  against  national  dig- 
nity, as  an  unjustified  disavowal  of  the  new  state  of 
affairs,  and,  lastly,  as  an  extraneous  and  unacceptable 
limitation  upon  the  exercise  of  our  sovereignty. 


For  the  same  reasons,  Chile  has  possessed  the  right 
to  demand  that  a  Chilean  ecclesiastic  authority  should 
exercise  religious  jurisdiction  over  Tacna  and  Arica 
as  long  as  those  territories  remain  under  sovereignty. 

Nevertheless,  her  demands  have  not  covered  all  of 
her  rights,  and  with  an  eminently  conciliatory  spirit, 
she  has  confined,  herself,  for  the  time  being,  to  ordering 
the  Peruvian  parish  priests  to  obey  the  Constitution 
and  the  laws  of  the  Eepublic,  and  to  requiring  the  pres- 
ent diocesan  to  permit,  thus  complying  with  his  canoni- 
cal duties,  Chilean  priests  to  exercise  their  sacred 
ministrations. 

The  Chilean  Government  has  not  been  as  strict  in 
the  exercise  of  its  sovereign  rights  respecting  the  ser- 
vices of  a  religious  nature,  as  it  has  been  respecting 
those  of  a  civil  nature.  It  has  evidenced  signs  of  a 
condescendence  and  of  a  tolerance  which  have  not  been 
appreciated  by  the  very  ones  who  were  benefited  by 
them. 

Two  reasons  counselled  Chile  to  adopt  that  attitude. 
On  the  one  hand,  she  did  not  wish  to  have  any  difficul- 
ties with  the  Holy  See,  with  whom  she  cultivates  such 
good  and  cordial  relations.    And,  on  the  other  hand. 


470 

she  wished  to  afford  the  inhabitants  of  Tacna  and 
Arica,  the  majority  of  whom  were  formerly  Peruvians, 
a  "proof  of  the  respect  that  she  entertained  for  their 
feelings,  by  permitting  them  to  continue  being  at- 
tended by  the  clergy  of  their  own  nationality. 

This  tolerance  upon  the  part  of  the  Chilean  Govern- 
ment was  badly  interpreted  by  the  Peruvian  priests,, 
and  under  its  shelter  they  formed  a  very  influential 
and  numerous  nucleus  that  directed  an  active  and 
tenacious  propaganda  against  Chile,  thus  returning 
positive  evil  for  the  good  done  unto  them. 

But  this  is  not  all.  In  return  for  the  generosity  of 
the  Chilean  Government  in  permitting  the  Peruvian 
inhabitants  to  continue  to  be  attended  by  priests  of 
their  own  nationality,  the  Diocesan  of  Arequipa  re- 
fused to  grant  to  the  Chilean  inhabitants,  already 
numerous,  the  permission  necessary  for  their  enjoy- 
ment of  the  identical  spiritual  benefits. 

Thus,  for  many  years,  the  obstinacy  of  the  Bishop 
of  Arequipa  and  the  determination,  until  now  invari- 
able, of  the  Holy  See  of  not  making  any  changes  in  the 
religious  jurisdiction  of  those  territories,  had  been 
brewing  a  conflict  which  appeared  to  be  religious,  but 
which  in  reality  was  political  and  international,  a  sen- 
sational conflict  the  solution  of  which  will  require  the 
good  will  and  the  best  efforts  of  the  parties  concerned 
in  it. 

II. 

THE    EVENTS. 

As  the  Chilean  population  of  Tacna  and  Arica  in- 
creased, greater  became  the  necessity  of  providing  for 
its  religious  service,  and  negotiations  tending  to  this 
end  were  initiated  before  the  Holy  See.        * 


471 

During  some  time,  the  interruption  of  our  diplomatic 
relations  with  the  Vatican,  brought  about  by  reasons 
which  we  need  not  recall  here,  prevented  the  Chilean 
Government  from  taking  those  steps,  which,  further- 
more, the  then  scant  Chilean  population  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  did  not  make  as  indispensable  as  at  present. 

Those  relations  having  been  reestablished,  the  Gov- 
ernment has  been  constantly  preoccupied  in  warding 
off  the  conflict  which  was  seen  to  be  brewing,  and  which 
would  break  out  some  day  in  the  painful  manner  that 
has  been  seen. 

Unfortunately,  the  Holy  See  has  understood  its  duty 
as  a  neutral  in  such  a  manner  that  it  has  not  been  able 
to  respond  to  the  very  just  pleas  of  the  Chilean  Catho- 
lics of  Tacna  and  Arica.  The  Government  of  Chile, 
because  of  the  high  conception  that  the  Holy  See  has 
of  its  sacred  duties  toward  Catholics  of  all  nationali- 
ties, hopes  that  that  policy,  harmful  to  the  spiritual 
interests  of  Chileans  who  reside  in  those  territories, 
will  soon  undergo  a  change. 


Besides,  the  administrative  authorities  of  the  prov- 
inces of  Tacna  and  Arica  have  verified,  on  repeated  oc- 
casions, acts  on  the  part  of  the  supposed  parish  priests 
that  have  lessened  their  prestige,  and  that  even  affords 
a  lamentable  example  for  their  parishioners. 

The  respect  owing  to  the  Church,  does  not  permit  a 
relation,  in  the  present  note,  of  some  of  these  acts,  a 
relation  that  would  bring  surprise  and  indignation  to 
all  upright  men.  In  a  long  confidential  communication, 
I  am  sending  you  all  of  these  facts,  perfectly  verified. 

The  erudition  and  virtue  of  the  Chilean  clergy  being 
notorious,  it  is  humiliating  to  national  dignity  to  see 
the  Diosesan  of  Arequipa  rejecting  them,  as  unworthy 
even  of  exercising  their  offices,  while  at  the  same  time 


472 

he  maintained  in  their  places  priests  who  had  lost,  even 
before  the  eyes  of  their  fellow-citizens,  that  moral  au- 
thority that  constitutes  their  strength. 


The  relations  with  the  Holy  See  having  been  re- 
newed in  such  a  manner  as  would  permit  hoping  that 
the  negotiations  established  would  have  a  satisfactory 
result,  the  necessity  of  having  Chilean  priests  in  Tacna 
and  Arica  becoming  indispensable,  the  moral  harm  in- 
flicted even  upon  Peruvians  by  the  conduct  of  the  so- 
called  parish  priests,  having  been  verified,  the  moment 
had  arrived,  for  the  Government,  when  its  duty  obliged 
it  to  take  a  decisive  step  in  order  to  satisfy  that  neces- 
sity and  to  extirpate  these  ills. 

First  it  sought  a  solution  by  suggesting  the  creation 
of  a  foreign  vicarage  that  would  depend  directly  upon 
the  Holy  See,  but  the  protests  of  Peru  did  not  allow 
a  result  to  be  reached  that  would  have  warded  off  the 
present  situation. 

The  exercise  of  such  an  extraneous  influence  might 
be  considered  contrary  to  our  rights  of  sovereignty 
over  Tacna  and  Arica,  a  sovereignty  that  Peru  cannot 
share  with  us,  as  it  is  one  and  indivisible. 

As  the  purpose  of  the  Government  merely  is  to  ex- 
plain the  beginning  and  the  development  of  events, 
we  cannot  judge  as  to  whether  it  was  Peru's  inter- 
ference in  an  affair  that  was  being  discussed  between 
Chile  and  the  Holy  See,  that  brought  about  the  deter- 
mination of  the  latter. 

The  Government  then  asked  for  permission  to  main- 
tain two  Chilean  chaplains  in  the  Chilean  hospitals 
of  Tacna  and  Arica,  in  order  to  minister  to  the  dying 
of  that  nationality.  This  request  was  refused  also. 
Thus,  in  a  territory  that  was  subject  to  the  sovereignty 
of  Chile  and  that  was  ruled  by  the  laws  of  the  Eepub- 


473 

lie,  Chileans  were  denied  that  which  surely  would  be 
granted  them  today  even  in  Lima  if  by  misfortune 
they  would  be  dying  in  the  hospitals  of  that  city. 


All  the  conciliatory"  means  having  been  exhausted, 
the  Chilean  Government  found  itself  in  the  absolute 
necessity  of  adopting  a  more  energetic  attitude,  and, 
convinced  that  its  former  efforts  were  fruitless,  it 
ordered  the  strict  compliance,  in  Tacna  and  Arica, 
with  the  constitutional  provision,  requiring  the  Peru- 
vian priests  who  pretended  to  be  parish  priests  to  ob-  -^ 
tain  permits. 

They  refused  to  solicit  the  said  permits,  and  then 
the  Government,  whose  duty  it  is  to  enforce  the  com- 
pliance with  the  Constitution  and  with  the  laws, 
ordered  the  closing  of  those  parochial  churches  in 
which  the  said  priests  unlawfully  exercised  their 
offices. 

The  church  at  Tacna,  however,  remained  open.  Its 
parish  priest,  Seiior  Andia,  a  model  priest  and  patriot, 
merited  this  exceptional  distinction  because  he  was, 
above  all,  an  apostle  of  peace  and  good  will,  and  be- 
cause he  had  never  denied  the  Republic  her  sovereign 
rights. 

All  the  churches  thus  being  closed,  the  Peruvian 
priests,  in  order  to  replace  them,  opened  oratories 
which  they  called  private,  but  which  were. in  fact  pub- 
lic. To  them  have  been  admitted  even  Chilean  citizens, 
who  promptly  denounced  them  to  the  administrative 
authority  of  the  province.  There  they  continued  exer- 
cising their  offices  as  parish  priests,  thus  openly  and 
deliberately  defying  the  Constitution  and  the  laws, 
provoking  the  authorities,  and,  what  is  yet  worse,  as- 
suming prerogatives  not  acknowledged  by  the  Chilean 
Government,  and  which  emanate  from  foreign  author- 


474 

ities  that  they  have  wished  to  make  prevail  over  and 
above  the  national  authorities. 

This  attitude  implied  an  act  of  manifest  sedition, 
and  a  serious  threat  against  public  peace  and  order  if 
it  were  not  put  to  an  end. 


Tn  the  meantime  the  Government  had  received,  from 
its  Legation  at  Lima,  news  of  a  favorable  change  of 
attitude  upon  the  part  of  the  Bishop  of  Arequipa.  The 
Apostolic  Delegate,  Monsignor  Dolci  stated  to  our 
Charge  dAif  aires,  by  note  dated  September  2,  1909, 
that  "the  Bishop  of  Arequipa  never  has  refused  to 
grant  the  Chilean  priests  authorization  to  exercise 
their  ministration  in  Tacna. ' ' 

A  few  days  later,  the  Government  instructed  our 
Charge  d'Aff aires  to  initiate  negotiations,  through  the 
Apostolic  Delegate,  tending  to  obtain  permits  for  the 
Chilean  priests  from  the  Bishop  of  Arequipa.  And  re- 
specting this,  the  Charge  dAif  aires  wrote,  in  a  note 
dated  October  8th  last : 

! 
"Without  delay,  I  went  to  see  the  Apostolic 
Delegate,  who  repeated  the  declarations  that  I 
communicated  to  you  in  a  former  note.  But  he 
observed  that  the  Bishop  had  referred  to  the 
priestly  ministration  and  not  to  the  parochial 
jurisdiction,  the  latter  being  an  affair  the  solving 
of  which  depends  upon  the  Government,  from 
which  nothing  can  be  expected.' ' 

To  make  clear  the  purpose  of  the  negotiation,  our 
Government  hastened  to  express  to  the  Apostolic  Dele- 
gate, through  our  Charge  d'Affaires,  that  the  permits 
solicited  for  the  Chilean  priests,  included  only  the  or- 
dinary authorization  to  receive  confessions,  to  say 
mass,  and  to  preach. 


475 

To  this  effect,  the  Government  sent,  on  November 
23d,  the  following  communication  to  our  Charge 
d  'Affaires : 

"In  accordance  with  what  you  manifest  in  a 
former  communication,  to  the  effect  that  the 
Bishop  of  Arequipa,  through  the  Apostolic  Dele- 
gate, has  declared  that  he  is  willing  to  grant  au- 
thorization to  the  Chilean  priests  to  exercise  their 
priestly  ministration  in  Tacna  and  Arica,  I  am  in- 
cluding the  permits  issued  by  the  Archbishop  of 
Santiago  to  the  priests,  Reverends  Efrain  Mada- 
riaga  and  Elias  Lizana,  in  order  that  you  may, 
through  the  Apostolic  Delegate,  obtain  the  au- 
thorization offered,  from  the  Bishop  of  Arequipa, 
so  that  the  said  priests  may  exercise  their  priestly 
ministration  in  Tacna. 

May  God  keep  you, 

Agustin  Edwards." 

A  few  days  later,  in  the  same  manner,  the  permits 
for  the  priests,  Reverends  Hugolino  G.  Quinzio  and 
Rafael  Edwards,  were  forwarded. 

Following  the  instructions  received,  our  Charge 
d'Affaires  addressed,  on  December  17th  last,  the  fol- 
lowing note  to  the  Apostolic  Delegate : 

"Most  Reverend:  In  private  conversations  that 
I  have  had  the  honor  of  having  with  Your  Excel- 
lency on  several  occasions,  Your  Excellency  has 
been  kind  enough  to  manifest  to  me  that  the 
Bishop  of  Arequipa  has  declared  to  Your  Excel- 
lency, that  he  never  has  refused  to  grant  the 
Chilean  priests  authorization  to  exercise  their 
priestly  ministration  in  the  province  of  Tacna, 
with  the  understanding  that  such  authorization 
includes  only  the  right  to  say  mass,  to  receive  con- 
fessions, and  to  preach,  with  the  exception  of  all 
parochial  jurisdiction. 


476 

* '  Having  forwarded  this  declaration  to  my  Gov- 
ernment, I  have  received  from  it  the  permits 
granted  by  His  Grace,  the  Archbishop  of  Santiago, 
to  the  priests  Reverends  Efrain  Madariaga  and 
Elias  Lizana,  so  that  I  might,  with  the  aid  of  Your 
Excellency  obtain  from  the  Bishop  of  Areqnipa 
the  authorization  necessary  so  that  they  may  ex- 
ercise their  priestly  ministration  in  the  province 
of  Tacna,  with  the  limitation  expressed. 

"I  include  in  this  note  the  corresponding  per- 
mits, and  I  am  happy  to  assure  Your  Excellency 
that  the  Chilean  Government  will  duly  appreciate 
whatever  influence  you  bring  to  bear  upon  the 
Bishop  of  Arequipa  in  order  to  bring  about  a 
favorable  solution  of  this  affair. 

"I  avail  myself  of  this  occasion  to  reiterate  to 
Your  Excellency  the  assurances  of  my  highest  and 
most  distinguished  consideration. 

Julio  Perez  Canto/' 

In  a  note  dated  December  24th  last,  the  Charge 
d'Aff aires  gives  an  account  of  his  interview  with  the 
Apostolic  Delegate,  as  follows : 

"I  have  spoken  with  the  Apostolic  Delegate  to 
ask  him  to  interpose  his  influence  with  the  Bishop 
of  Arequipa,  and  he  has  replied  that  in  the  present 
circumstances  he  considers  it  very  difficult  to  ob- 
tain the  authorization  spoken  of,  especially  since 
Sr.  Porras  is  in  the  Cabinet. 

"He  added  that  the  Church,  as  a  good  mother, 
wished  for  the  welfare  of  all  her  children,  and  that 
she  could  not  take  sides  with  one,  against  another. 
That  his  personal  situation  was  very  delicate,  and 
that  if  he  interested  himself  in  favor  of  Chile,  the 
Peruvian  Government  might  expel  him  from  the 
country. ' ' 

A  few  days  later,  on  December  31st  last,  he  reported 
the  definite  failure  of  the  negotiations,  as  follows : 


477 

"Yesterday,  Monsignor  Dolci,  sent  me  the  fol- 
lowing message  with  the  Secretary  of  the  Apostolic 
Legation:  'that  it  was  absolutely  impossible  for 
him  to  interfere  in  this  affair,  and  that  any  action 
upon  his  part  would  be  equivalent  to  taking  the 
steamer  and  leaving  the  country.'  I  could  not  ob- 
tain any  further  explanations. " 

The  Charge  d 'Affaires  adds  that  the  Secretary  of 
the  Apostolic  Legation  returned  to  him,  his  note  of 
December  17th,  together  with  the  permits  that  he  had 
enclosed. 


Thus  the  last  attempt  made  by  the  Chilean  Govern- 
ment to  ward  off  the  necessity  of  taking  extreme  and 
painful  measures,  had  failed. 

The  Chilean  priests  had  been  banished  from  Tacna 
and  Arica  by  the  Bishop  of  Arequipa,  who  had  in  mind 
ends  that  were  essentially  political,  and  who  placed 
upon  the  said  priests  a  blame  that  they  did  not  deserve 
because  of  their  great  culture,  their  unblemished  virtue, 
and  their  evangelic  spirit.  Chilean  citizens  were  de- 
prived of  the  assistance  and  of  the  comfort  rendered 
by  the  religion  that  they  professed.  And  thus  a  de- 
pressing situation  was  created,  one  that  the  Govern- 
ment could  not  tolerate,  without  putting  to  one  side  its 
traditions  of  uprightness  and  prestige. 

There  does  not  exist  any  sound  reason,  there  does 
not  exist  any  consideration  of  equity  or  of  justice,  to 
justify  the  fact  that  only  the  Peruvians  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  should  have  the  privilege  of  enjoying  the  advan- 
tages of  receiving  religious  assistance  from  the  hands 
of  their  own  fellow  citizens. 

Putting  aside,  then,  the  reasons  of  State  and  the 
clear  rights  that  authorized  the  measure,  the  Govern- 
ment, inspired  by  a  feeling  of  equity,  and  for  the  sake 


478 

of  the  equality  that  it  seeks  to  apply  to  all  the  inhabi- 
tants of  Tacna  and  Arica,  whether  they  be  Chileans, 
Peruvians,  or  foreigners,  was  placed  in  the  painful 
but  indispensable  necessity  of  putting  an  end  to  this 
odious  privilege. 

To  this  effect,  on  February  17th,  it  addressed  the  fol- 
lowing communication  to  the  Intendant  of  Tacna : 

"Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  placed  the 
provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica  under  the  full  sov- 
ereignty of  our  country  without  any  limitations  as 
to  its  exercise.  Therefore,  in  the  civil  adminis- 
tration, as  well  as  in  the  ecclesiastic,  not  any  other 
authority  than  that  of  Chile  should  rule  in  that 
region. 

"Nevertheless,  from  a  religious  point  of  view, 
Tacna  and  Arica  still  depended  upon  the  Bishopric 
of  Arequipa,  just  as  when  those  provinces  were 
under  Peruvian  rule. 

"Chile  at  first  did  not  grant  any  importance  to 
this  fact,  thinking  that  the  Bishop  of  Arequipa 
would  maintain  impartiality  in  the  exercise  of 
his  office,  attending  only  to  the  spiritual  welfare 
of  the  region,  and  not  applying  any  measures  of  a 
political  nature. 

"Unfortunately,  it  was  not  so.  Our  Government 
learned  with  surprise,  that  the  Peruvian  ecclesi- 
astic authority  assumed  an  attitude  frankly  hostile 
to  the  Chilean  Government  and  authority.  ^  In 
the  provinces  named,  it  only  appointed  Peruvians 
as  parish  priests,  and  it  ever  refused  to  permit 
Chilean  clergymen  to  exercise  their  priestly  offices. 

'  *  By  this  strange  attitude,  our  citizens  were  left, 
without  any  good  reason,  in  a  very  deplorable  sit- 
uation, as  they  could  not  receive  religious  assist- 
ance from  our  own  priests,  although  they  were  on 
Chilean  territory.  And  this  serious  state  of  af- 
fairs was  made  more  complicated  by  the  fact  that 
the  Peruvian  priests,  the  morality  of^  some  of 
whom  was  deplorable,  constantly  carried  on  an 


479 

anti-Chilean  propaganda,  upon  territory  that  had 
been  placed  under  our  sovereignty  by  a  solemn 
Treaty. 

' i  Chile  for  some  time  has  desired  to  put  an  end 
to  a  situation  that  is  abnormal  and  that  wounds 
our  national  dignity,  and  to  this  effect  decided  to 
put  in  force  the  requirement  of  the  Constitution 
respecting  permits,  in  the  case  of  all  the  appoint- 
ments of  parish  priests  made  by  the  Bishop  of 
Arequipa  for  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 
The  Peruvian  priests  never  have  acknowledged 
the  right  of  our  authorities  to  demand  that  they 
comply  with  the  requisite  of  our  fundamental  law. 

"At  the  same  time,  this  Foreign  Department 
initiated  negotiations  with  the  Roman  Church,  in 
order  to  solve  this  conflict  in  a  friendly  manner. 

"According  to  a  communication  from  our  Min- 
ister before  the  Holy  See,  the  Vatican  has  de- 
clared that,  in  spite  of  its  good  will  to  do  so,  it 
can  not  accede  to  the  wishes  of  the  Chilean  Gov- 
ernment. The  reason  upon  which  the  Vatican 
bases  its  refusal  is  that  the  ecclesiastic  question  in 
Tacna  and  Arica  is  connected  closely  with  the  po- 
litical situation  of  that  territory.  And  that,  be- 
cause of  the  inflexibility  on  the  part  of  Peru  upon 
this  point,  any  measure  that  the  Vatican  might 
take,  would  be  considered  a  sign  of  partiality  in 
favor  of  one  of  the  two  countries. 

"The  Peruvian  priests  appointed  by  the  Bishop 
of  Arequipa  in  the  meantime  have  assumed  a  very 
irritating  and  provoking  attitude,  being  disposed 
to  ignore  our  laws,  living,  as  they  do,  under  the 
protection  of  our  Constitution. 

"Thus  those  persons,  who  are  not  permitted  by 
the  Chilean  authorities  to  exercise  their  parochial 
office  in  the  churches,  exercise  that  office  in  private 
homes,  thus  attempting  to  defeat  the  purpose  of 
the  permit  required  by  the  Constitution. 

"The  Government  thinks  that  it  is  time  to  put 
an  end  to  these  irregularities  which  threaten  its 
sovereign  rights,  and  to  apply  energetic  measures 


480 

in  order  that  our  laws  may  not  be  evaded  with 
impunity. 

* i  To  this  effect,  it  has  availed  itself  of  the  right 
conceded  by  international  law  to  the  sovereign  of 
a  territory,  to  expel  from  it  those  foreigners  who 
do  not  obey  its  laws,  and  who  foment  discord. 
Article  V,  paragraph  2  of  our  Law  of  Individual 
Guarantees,  expressly  authorizes  our  Government 
to  take  such  a  measure. 

"The  Government  of  Chile,  therefore  charges 
you  with  the  duty  of  notifying  those  who  call  them- 
selves Peruvian  parish  priests,  who  reside  in  Tac- 
na  and  Arica,  to  leave  the  territory  of  the  Repub- 
lic as  soon  as  possible.  You  will  carry  out  this 
resolution,  and  will  keep  strict  watch  so  that  not 
any  Peruvian  priests  may  enter  that  territory  for 
the  ostensible  purpose  of  exercising  his  office  or 
of  making  propaganda  in  favor  of  his  country. 

Agustin  Edwards." 

Further  on  you  will  see  that,  although  this  measure 
has  been  attacked  within  as  well  as  without  the  coun- 
try, the  Government  has  subjected  itself  strictly  to  the 
law,  safeguarding  it  in  its  entirety. 

Before  analyzing  the  juridical  aspect  of  the  measure, 
I  think  it  necessary  to  discuss  a  negotiation,  that  has 
been  presented  before  the  eyes  of  the  world  as  one 
of  a  conciliatory  nature  proposed  by  a  competent  au- 
thority and  not  accepted  by  the  Government. 

It  has  been  said  that  a  foreign  order  solicited  from 
the  Chilean  Government  an  authorization  to  estab- 
lish itself  in  Tacna,  and  that  the  said  authorization 
was  not  granted. 

As  no  facts  respecting  such  a  solicitation,  existed  in 
this  Department,  the  Intendant  of  Tacna  was  asked 
for  information,  and  he  replied,  by  telegram  dated  the 
12th  of  the  present  month,  as  follows : 


481 

"  I  have  not  received  any  communications  of  any 
kind  respecting  the  settling  of  Barefooted  Friars 
in  the  province. 

"If  I  had  received  any  such  communication,  I 
would  have  submitted  it  immediately  to  your  con- 
sideration. 

"It  is  true  that  on  one  occasion,  some  bare- 
footed missionaries  who  happened  to  be  in  Tacna 
were  presented  to  me  by  the  parish  priest,  and 
that,  during  the  course  of  our  brief  conversation,, 
they  asked  if,  in  case  that  their  order  could  estab- 
lish a  home  here,  the  authorities  would  offer  facili- 
ties therefor.    I  answered  affirmatively. 

"A  little  over  a  year  later,  they  returned  to 
Tacna  on  missions,  and  on  a  visit  similar  to  the 
former,  they  repeated  their  question,  adding  that 
they  thought  that  they  could  obtain  permission 
from  you  to  settle  here.  On  this  occasion  I  an- 
swered that  circumstances  had  changed  a  great 
deal,  because  the  Bishop  of  Arequipa  refused  to 
permit  Chilean  priests  to  exercise  their  ministra- 
tions here,  and  that  his  stubborness  surely  would 
force  the  Chilean  Government  to  solve  the  con- 
flict in  such  a  manner  that  the  sovereign,  rights  of 
the  country  would  be  safeguarded. 

"I  stated  that  I  could  not  take  any  steps  regard- 
ing their  petition,  and  that  they  should  address 
themselves  directly  to  the  Government. 

"They  did  not  present  before  me  any  petition 
nor  did  they  even  ask  me  to  consult  in  the  matter 
privately  with  your  Department. 

"I  again  state  that  all  this  was  said  during  the 
course  of  a  conversation  that  lasted  a  few  minutes, 
and  that  not  at  any  time  did  they  insinuate  even, 
the  fact  that  their  bishop  had  entrusted  them  with 
the  duty  of  initiating  a  formal  negotiation.  If 
that  prelate  had  entertained  such  an  idea,  he  would 
not  have  thought  of  applying  to  me. 

Lira." 


482 


THE    LEGAL   ASPECT. 


The  Government  of  Chile  thus  being  forced  by  the 
trend  of  affairs  in  spite  of  the  constant  conciliatory 
efforts  upon  its  part,  it  could  have  applied  extraordi- 
nary measures.  Yet  it  has  confined  itself  to  carrying 
out  the  existing  laws  in  Tacna  and  Arica. 

In  Chile,  as  in  almost  all  of  Latin  America,  the  re- 
lations between  the  Church  and  the  State  are  carried 
on  by  the  patronage  system,  while  in  the  case  of  the 
Catholic  countries  of  Europe,  such  relations  are  gov- 
erned by  concordats  pacted  with  the  Holy  See. 

This  patronage  right,  which  derives  its  origin  from 
the  old  Spanish  legislation,  and  which  includes  all  the 
attributes  of  the  State  over  the  churches,  the  benefices, 
and  the  ecclesiastic  persons,  is,  in  Latin  America,  an 
integral  part  of  national  sovereignty,  and  sovereignty 
is  not  thought  of  without  including  patronage. 

The  Church  is,  by  this  system,  an  institution  of  pub- 
lic law,  and  the  relations  established  by  the  Constitu- 
tion between  the  Church  and  the  State,  are  the  logical 
and  necessary  consequence  of  that  fact.  The  religion 
of  the  country  is  the  Catholic  religion,  and  the  State 
protects  it  by  providing  for  its  expenses  with  part  of 
its  income. 

The  fact  that  the  Holy  See  does  not  expressly  recog- 
nize this  right,  does  not  annul  it. 

By  its  nature  patronage  gives  a  characteristic  aspect 
— which  is  not  had  in  Europe — to  certain  political  and 
religious  questions  and  to  the  relations  of  the  Holy 
See,  and  it  may  be  considered  an  institution  of  consti- 
tutional, canonical,  and  American  international  law. 

The  Constitution  places  the  exercise  of  this  right  in 
the  hands  of  the  President  of  the  Republic,  who  in 
certain  cases  consults  therefore  the  Council  of  State. 

By  virtue  of  it,  no  priest  can  exercise  the  office  of 


483 

parish  priest  within  national  territory,  without  the 
previous  authorization  of  the  Government,  which  is 
obtained  by  the  Bishop  of  the  respective  diocese. 

In  Tacna  and  Arica,  the  Government  condescend- 
ingly permitted  the  Bishop  of  Arequipa  to  continue  in 
the  exercise  of  religious  jurisdiction  after  the  signing 
of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  those 
territories  had  been  placed  under  the  sovereignty  of 
Chile.  And,  hoping  that  the  difficulties  which  this  ab- 
normal situation  necessarily  would  create,  would  be 
solved  peacefully,  for  several  years  it  did  not  demand 
the  permits  required  by  the  Constitution  from  the 
parish  priests  appointed  by  the  diocesan. 

The  events  spoken  of  above,  showed  that  those  hopes 
were  not  to  be  fulfilled.  The  growth  of  Chilean  popu- 
lation made  it  absolutely  necessary  for  the  Govern- 
ment to  exercise  the  right  of  patronage  in  that  terri- 
tory, and  to  demand  the  corresponding  supreme  au- 
thorization from  those  who  were  to  be  parish  priests. 

The  Peruvian  diocesan  and  priests  refused  to  sub- 
mit themselves  to  this  constitutional  formality,  alleg- 
ing that  they  did  not  fall  within  the  provisions  of  the 
Constitution,  which  is  in  force,  without  any  exceptions, 
in  the  rest  of  the  national  territory.  The  reasons  upon 
which  they  base  that  theory  have  not  been  presented 
to  the  Government,  and  the  refusal  seems  to  have  been 
founded  until  now  only  upon  a  spirit  of  non-compliance 
with  our  laws. 

Thus  the  Government  was  forced  to  order  the  clos- 
ing of  the  parochial  churches  so  as  to  prevent  the  Con- 
stitution from  being  violated  publicly  and  with  im- 
punity. The  Bishop  of  Arequipa  then  gave  the  so- 
called  parish  priests  special  permits  so  that  they  might 
continue  to  exercise  their  offices  in  private  homes.  In 
this  manner  the  laws  were  violated,  the  orders  given 


484 

by  the  authorities  were  ignored,  and  a  religious  con- 
flict, which  the  Chilean  Government  had  tried  until 
then  to  ward  off,  was  brought  about  in  a  manner  that 
was  most  offensive  and  odious  to  our  national  dignity. 

The  Government,  being  placed  in  this  situation, 
could  proceed  only  in  one  of  two  manners;  either  it 
prosecuted  criminally  the  infractors  of  the  law,  or  it 
expelled,  by  means  of  the  administrative  authorities, 
those  foreigners  who  threatened  the  public  peace  and 
who  made  attempts  against  the  dignity  of  the  State. 

If  the  path  of  judicial  action  were  chosen,  more  than 
one  clause  of  the  Penal  Code  could  be  applied  to  the 
case  of  the  so-called  parish  priests.  I  may  recall,  among 
others,  Article  216  and  Article  213  that  states : 

"Whoever  feigns  to  be  a  public  authority  or 
employee,  or  who  practices  a  profession  without 
having  a  license,  and  who  carries  out  some  act 
proper  to  such  an  office  or  to  such  a  profession, 
shall  be  subject  to  the  penalty  of  from  sixty-one 
days  to  five  years,  and  to  pay  a  fine  of  from  one 
hundred  to  one  thousand  pesos.* ' 

It  can  not  be  denied  that  the  priests  who  pretend 
to  exercise  a  parochial  office,  without  the  correspond- 
ing supreme  authority,  feigns  to  be  a  public  authority 
or  employee,  and  carries  out  acts  proper  to  the  office 
of  parish  priest  without  having  the  required  license. 

And  this  case,  of  individuals  who  pretend  to  exercise 
a  public  office,  having  been  appointed  by  a  foreign  au- 
thority, is  even  more  serious. 

The  Chilean  Government  preferred  to  choose  the 
expulsion  of  the  so-called  parish  priests  by  means  of 
the  administrative  authorities,  as  this  measure  is  more 
respectful  of  their  sacred  investiture. 

To  this  effect,  the  Government  imparted  to  the  In- 
tendant  of  Tacna  the  instructions  transcribed  above, 


485 

and  the  latter,  complying  with  them,  notified  the  Peru- 
vian priests  who  unduly  exercised  the  office  of  parish 
priests,  to  leave  the  territory  of  the  Republic  within 
a  brief  term. 

This  administrative  measure  called  forth  indispens- 
ably by  national  dignity,  falls  squarely  within  the  pre- 
cepts of  international  law,  within  the  principles  of  uni- 
versal common  law,  and  within  the  dispositions  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  State. 

It  is  an  elemental  principle  of  international  law  that 
a  State  may,  to  safeguard  its  interior  and  exterior 
peace,  prohibit  certain  foreigners  from  entering  its 
territory.  Another  such  principle  is  that  foreigners 
are  subject  to  the  laws  of  the  country  in  which  they 
reside.  If  they  do  not  obey  the  said  laws,  or  if  they 
provoke  a  scandalous  situation,  they  may  be  expelled 
from  the  territory  by  the  offended  Government. 

In  consecrating  this  principle,  international  law  has 
watched  over  the  existence  itself  of  the  State,  which 
might  be  threatened  by  foreigners,  who,  residing  in  its 
territory,  might  violate  its  fundamental  laws,  and  who 
might  pretend  to  exercise  a  public  office,  while  the 
Government  could  not  apply  immediate  and  efficient 
measures  to  put  an  end  to  such  disrespect. 

Basing  their  acts  upon  that  principle,  governments 
constantly  are  preventing  foreigners  from  entering 
the  national  territory,  or  are  expelling  certain  ones, 
and  not  any  one  has  considered  such  measures  to  be 
applications  of  penalties. 

This  is  not  the  only  case  in  which  individual  liberty 
is  fettered  by  international  law.  Diplomatic  agents, 
in  spite  of  the  inviolability  that  they  enjoy,  and  in  spite 
of  the  fact  that  they  are  not  within  local  jurisdiction, 
may  be  handed  their  passports  and  thus  be  obliged  to 
leave  the  country  peremptorily. 


486 

In  other  cases,  the  duties  imposed  by  neutrality,  con- 
secrated in  international  law,  restrain  individual  lib- 
erty. Thus,  governments  sometimes  are  obliged  to  ex- 
pel from  their  territories  or  to  confine  in  a  determined 
place  an  individual  or  a  group  of  individuals,  as  occurs 
in  the  case  of  revolutionary  natives  of  neighboring 
countries  who  conspire  against  them. 

The  duties  imposed  by  international  courtesy  and 
reciprocity  likewise  prescribe,  in  certain  and  deter- 
mined cases,  the  seizure  and  expulsion  of  foreigners, 
as  for  instance,  in  the  cases  of  extradition  and  of  the  re- 
turning of  deserters. 

Lastly,  there  are  the  cases  of  cession  of  territory  in 
which  it  is  stipulated  often  that  the  inhabitants  of  the 
ceded  territory  may  choose  between  the  nationality 
that  they  had  and  the  new  nationality  of  the  territory. 
But  if  they  choose  the  former,  they  must  abandon  the 
territory  and  settle  outside  of  it.  The  only  reason  for 
this  stipulation  is  the  fact  that  it  is  convenient  to  re- 
move from  a  State's  territory,  all  persons  who  are 
hostile  to  the  sovereignty  in  force. 

In  all  of  these  cases,  the  states  proceed  in  accord- 
ance with  and  respecting  the  principles  of  international 
law  which  complete  internal  legislation.  To  ignore 
these  principles  would  be  to  fall  outside  the  pale  of 
civilized  nations. 

Frequently,  the  legislation  of  each  country  points 
out  expressly  the  obligations  and  rights  that  emanate 
from  international  law,  and  determine  the  procedure 
that  must  be  followed  in  order  to  comply  with  them 
and  to  carry  them  out.  But  these  obligations  and 
rights  are  not  destroyed  by  the  fact  that  they  are  not 
expressly  mentioned  or  regulated.  In  such  cases  the 
exercise  of  the  said  obligations  and  rights  is  left  to 
the  prudence  of  the  governments,  and  they  are  respon- 


437 

sible  for  it,  just  as  they  are  for  all  other  administra- 
tive acts. 

That  that  right  of  expulsion  of  foreigners  is  derived 
from  international  law,  not  considering  what  is  pre- 
scribed by  the  internal  legislation  of  each  country,  is 
proven  by  the  fact  that  conventions  are  celebrated 
often  to  regulate  its  exercise. 

In  diverse  treaties  of  friendship  and  commerce,  the 
cases  and  formalities  of  extradition  are  stipulated,  as 
are  also  the  handing  over  of  sailor  deserters.  It  is 
established  also  that,  "the  citizens  of  the  respective 
countries  can  not  be  expelled  or  confined  in  a  deter- 
mined part  of  the  country,  in  accordance  with  a  police 
or  governmental  order,'1  unless  there  exist  serious 
motives,  and  unless  -such  motives  and  the  documents 
to  verify  them  have  been  presented  to  the  diplomatic 
or  consular  agents  of  the  respective  nation. 

If  the  right  of  expulsion  were  not  inherent  to  and  de- 
rived from  the  general  principles  of  international  law, 
the  contracting  governments  would  not  provide  for 
its  regulation,  except  in  the  case  where  it  would  be 
consecrated  in  the  internal  legislation  of  one  of  the 
states. 

But  in  many  cases  that  legislation  does  not  exist, 
and  yet  the  right  of  expulsion  is  regulated  by  a  con- 
vention, as  in  the  case,  for  instance,  of  the  Treaty  of 
Friendship,  Commerce,  and  Navigation  which  Peru 
and  Chile  pacted  on  January  20,  1835,  and  which  is 
not  abrogated.  That  Treaty,  signed  two  years  after 
the  promulgation  of  the  Constitution,  contains  a  stipu- 
lation that  proves  that  in  the  minds  of  the  contracting 
Governments,  the  constitutional  guarantees  respecting 
individual  liberty  do  not  apply  to  the  cases  governed 
by  international  law. 

Article  5  of  that  Treaty  states : 


488 

"If  (may  God  forbid  it)  war  should  ensue  be- 
tween the  two  Republics,  the  citizens  of  each  one 
of  them,  who  at  the  breaking  out  of  hostilities 
should  be  upon  the  territory  of  the  other,  shall  en- 
joy complete  safety  therein,  they  may  continue 
to  carry  on  freely  their  businesses  or  professions, 
•  without  being  persecuted  or  molested,  as  long  as 
they  do  not  infringe  the  laws,  or  actually  damage 
the  interests  of  the  country  of  their  residence.  In 
the  latter  case,  if  it  should  become  necessary  to 
expel  them,  they  shall  be  given  passports,  and  suf- 
ficient time  shall  be  granted  them  so  that  they  may 
arrange  their  affairs  and  dispose  of  their  prop- 
erty, which  in  no  case  may  be  confiscated  or  at- 
tached. ' ' 

But  not  only  by  virtue  of  the. general  principles  of 
international  law,  has  the  Government  of  Chile  been 
able  to  expel  the  so-called  Peruvian  parish  priests 
from  Tacna  and  Arica.  That  right  is  conceded  to  it 
also  by  the  internal  legislation  of  the  Republic. 

Article  10  of  the  Constitution  states : 

"The  Constitution  assures  all  the  inhabitants 
of  the  Republic     *     *     * 

4th.  The  right  to  remain  in  any  part  of  the  Re- 
public, to  move  from  one  part  to  another,  or  to 
leave  its  territory,  observing  always  the  police 
regulations  and  providing  that  his  leaving  does 
not  prove  detrimental  to  a  third  party,  and  no 
one  may  be  imprisoned,  detained,  or  banished  ex- 
cept in  the  mann'er  prescribed  by  the  laws. ' ' 

The  precept  is  clear:  individual  liberty  can  not  be 
absolute.  It  is  limited  by  law,  by  police  regulations, 
and  by  the  rights  of  third  parties.  Only  thus  are 
abuses  prevented. 

When  the  Constitution  refers  to  law  it  implies  in- 
ternational law  as  well  as  civil  law,  as  it  has  been  dc- 


489 

clared  more  than  once  that  the  former  is  an  integral 
part  of  our  general  legislation. 

From  among  the  many  dispositions  that  verify  this 
statement,  may  be  cited  Article  1  of  the  Code  of  Crimi- 
nal Procedure,  which  states: 

"The  Courts  of  the  Republic  have  jurisdiction 
over  Chileans  and  foreigners  to  try  the  crimes  and 
misdemeanors  committed  within  the  national  ter- 
ritory, save  in  those  cases  where  exceptions  have 
been  introduced  by  the  recognized  general  rules 
of  international  law." 

The  Law  of  Individual  Guarantees,"  cited  further 
on,  contains  an  analogous  disposition. 

And  lastly,  there  is  Article  117  of  the  Organic  Law 
of  Tribunals,  which  recognizes  expressly  that  there  are 
cases  that  must  be  tried  in  accordance  with  interna- 
tional law. 

It  is  not  admissible  that  a  foreigner,  under  the  pro- 
tection of  the  right  of  free  residence  in  a  country,  may 
conspire  against  its  laws  and  against  its  government. 
Such  is  the  case  with  the  so-called  parish  priests  of 
Tacna,  who  plead  that  right  in  order  to  violate,  pub- 
licly and  systematically,  all  the  precepts  of  the  Con- 
stitution, and  to  threaten  the  prestige  and  the  very  ex- 
istence of  the  constituted  authorities. 

All  police  ordinances  are  based  precisely  upon  the 
necessity  of  preventing  the  disturbance  of  the  public 
peace.  In  some  cases,  ordinary  justice  is  called  upon 
to  intervene  according  to  the  dispositions  of  the  Penal 
Code.  In  others,  the  administrative  action  is  sufficient 
to  check  the  abuse.  The  right  to  expel  foreigners  falls 
within  such  action,  as  also  the  right  to  prohibit  them 
from  entering  the  national  territory. 

The  Constitution  grants  the  Executive  sufficient 
power,  in  certain  and  determined  cases,  to  apply  such 


490 

police  measures  as  lie  may  estimate  necessary,  without 
referring  to  the  judicial  authorities,  because  in  reality, 
the  application  of  those  measures,  severe  as  they  may 
appear,  does  not  constitute  the  infliction  of  a  penalty. 
In  these  cases,  those  who  are  deprived  temporarily  of 
the  right  of  free  residence,  suffer  only  the  conse- 
quences derived  from  an  administrative  measure 
which  tends  to  the  preservation  of  the  public  peace. 
This  occurs,  for  example,  when  the  President  of  the 
Republic,  after  certain  formalities,  declares  martial 
law  in  one  or  more  regions  of  the  country,  and  thus 
the  effects  of  the  law  of  individual  guarantees  are  sus- 
pended. 

The  Constitution  has  granted  the  President,  besides, 
police  powers  sufficient  to  safeguard  public  peace  and 
to  insure  the  internal  and  external  safety  of  the 
country. 

In  the  present  case,  it  is  very  important  not  to  con- 
found the  power  to  expel  which  is  derived  from  the 
general  principle  of  international  law,  with  the  pe- 
nalty of  banishment  or  exile  prescribed  by  the  inter- 
nal legislation.  The  former  may  be  exercised  by  the 
Executive  Power,  while  the  latter  may  be  applied  only 
By  the  Judicial  Power. 

Although  the  material  effects  of  expulsion  and  of 
banishment  or  exile  may  be  the  same,  the  nature  and 
juridical  essence  of  the  two  are  absolutely  different. 

The  mass  expulsion  because  of  war,  the  handing  of 
his  passports  to  a  diplomatic  agent,  the  expulsion  of 
an  individual  who  threatens  public  peace,  all  produce 
the  same  effects  as  the  banishment  or  exile  of  a  com- 
mon criminal. 

In  all  of  those  cases,  the  abandonment  of  the  ter- 
ritory of  the  Republic  took  place  under  compulsion. 

It  is  to  be  observed,  however,  that  expulsion  cannot 


491 

take  place  except  in  the  case  of  foreigners,  and 
must  be  carried  out  by  the  administrative  authori- 
ties. Banishment  or  exile  can  be  applied  to  natives 
as  well  as  to  foreigners,  but  only  by  the  judicial 
authorities. 

Banishment  or  exile  almost  always  brings  with  it 
accessory  disqualifications,  and  if  the  convicted  per- 
son is  guilty  anew,  he  is  considered  a  second  time 
offender.  In  the  case  of  expulsion,  as  that  is  a  mea- 
sure applied  without  trial,  the  person  affected  is  not 
a  convict.  He  may  enter  again  the  territory  of  the 
Republic  if  he  can  give  assurances  of  not  repeating 
the  acts  that  gave  rise  to  or  originated  his  expulsion. 

The  "Law  of  individual  Guarantees"  of  1884,,  ex- 
pressly safeguards  the  rights  granted  to  the  Govern- 
ment by  the  general  principles  of  international  law. 
Article  5  states: 

"The  provisions  contained  in  the  three  pre- 
ceding articles  do  not  apply.     *     *     * 

"2nd.  To  what  is  enacted  in  accordance  with 
treaties  pacted  with  foreign  nations,  or  with  the 
general  principles  of  international  law."    *    *    * 

Thus,  it  is  beyond  all  doubt  that  the  Government 
has  proceeded  in  complete  accordance  with  the  law, 
in  putting  an  end  to  a  state  of  affairs  that  is  irregular 
and  lowering  to  national  dignity. 


Public  opinion,  weary  of  seeing  its  dearest  interests' 
damaged  in  Tacna  and  Arica,  demanded  insistently 
that  the  Government  should  make  use  of  all  its  powers 
in  order  to  impose  the  respect  that  its  laws  and  its  be- 
liefs merit. 

The  Chilean  civil  authorities  were  defied  and  the 
Chilean  priests  were  outlawed. 


492 

The  tolerance  practiced  for  a  quarter  of  a  century 
must  be  ended.  The  inflexibility  of  the  Diocesan  of 
Arequipa,  and  the  conduct  of  the  so-called  parish 
priests,  demanded  that  it  should  be  ended. 

The  complete  justice  with  which  the  Government 
proceeds,  and  the  perfect  right  on  which  it  bases  its 
acts,  will  justify  the  measure  that  it  has  applied, 
within  and  without  the  Republic. 

May  God  keep  you, 

Agustin  Edwards. 


Charge  d' Affaires  of  Peru  in  Chile  to  Minister  of 
Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 

[Translation.] 

Santiago,  March  19,  1910. 
Mr.  Minister  : 

The  persevering'  steps  taken  by  the  Government  of 
Peru  to  induce  the  Government  of  Chile  to  decide  to 
undertake  a  reparative  action,  in  view  of  the  hostilities 
of  which  Peruvian  inhabitants  of  Tacna  and  Arica 
have  been  the  victims,  in  conformity  with  the  policy 
adopted  by  Your  Excellency's  Government,  have  been 
fruitless. 

The  expulsion  of  the  priests  that  exercised  parochial 
functions  in  these  territories  has  been  recently  effected 
in  a  violent  manner. 

This  act  shows  that  the  Government  of  Chile  is  re- 
solved to  maintain  the  attitude  that  it  has  assumed, 
which  tends  to  suppress,  systematically  and  forcibly, 
the  Peruvian  element  in  the  occupied  provinces. 

My  Government,  in  view  of  this  situation,  considers 
useless  the  maintenance  of  its  diplomatic  representa- 
tion in  this  capital,  and  it  has  ordered  me  to  return  to 


493 

Peru,  after  lodging  its  protest  against  the  acts  to 
which  I  have  referred :  a  duty  that  I  perform  by  means 
of  the  present  communication. 

I  take  this  opportunity  to  assure  Your  Excellency 
of  my  highest  and  most  distinguished  consideration. 

Arturo  Garcia. 
To  His  Excellency, 

Sehor  Don  Agustin  Edwards, 

Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Chile  to  Charge  d' Af- 
faires of  Peru  in  Chile. 

[Translation.] 

Vina  del  Mar /March  20, 1910. 

Mr.  Charge  d'affaires: 

I  have  in  my  possession  your  communication  under 
date  of  yesterday. 

You  say  that  "the  persevering  steps  taken  by  the 
Government  of  Peru  to  induce  the  Government  of 
Chile  to  decide  to  undertake  a  reparative  action,  in 
view  of  the  hostilities  of  which  Peruvian  inhabitants 
of  Tacna  and  Arica  have  been  the  victims,  in  con- 
formity with  the  policy  adopted  by  it,  have  been  fruit- 
less." 

You  add  that  "the  expulsion  of  the  priests  that  ex- 
ercised parochial  functions  in  these  territories  has 
been  recently  effected  in  a  violent  manner/ y  and  that 
"this  act  shows  that  the  Government  of  Chile  is  re- 
solved to  maintain  the  attitude  that  it  has  assumed, 
which  tends  to  suppress,  systematically  and  forcibly, 
the  Peruvian  element "  in  what  Your  Honor  calls 
the  "occupied  provinces." 


494 

You  end  by  saying  that  your  Government,  in  view  of 
this  situation,  considers  useless  the  maintenance  of  its 
diplomatic  representation  in  Santiago,  and  has  ordered 
you  to  return  to  Peru,  after  lodging  its  protest  against 
the  acts  to  which  you  make  reference. 

This  is  not  the  first  time  that  the  Government  of 
Peru  has  decided  to  withdraw  its  diplomatic  repre- 
sentation from  my  country,  and  still  less  the  first  pro- 
test it  has  made  against  acts  or  measures  that  my 
Government  effects  in  the  use  of  the  sovereign  powers 
that  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  confers  on  it  in  the  terri- 
tories of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

Nevertheless,  on  this  occasion,  the  decision  of  your 
Government  is  doubly  grave  and  serious,  reached,  as 
it  has  been,  almost  immediately  after  the  proposals 
contained  in  a  note  addressed  by  mine  under  date  of 
March  3rd  last,  with  a  view^to  effecting  the  plebiscite 
on  bases  that  insure  the  fullest  equity  and  that  are  in 
perfect  harmony  with  the  stipulations  of  the  Treaty  of 
Ancon. 

My  Government  did  not  expect  that  your  Govern- 
ment would  reply  to  those  proposals  by  withdrawing 
once  more  the  diplomatic  representation  accredited  to 
.  it.  This  decision  shows  how  far  from  your  Govern- 
ment 's  will  are  the  sincere  designs  of  an  understanding 
that  animate  my  Government,  which  places  the  respon- 
sibility on  that  of  Peru,  while  testifying  to  Chile's 
efforts,  as  continuous  as  they  have  been  fruitless,  to 
arrive  at  an  accord,  easy  to  be  achieved,  if  the  cordial 
and  friendly  spirit  that  animates  it  were  reciprocated. 

The  situation  that  your  Government  creates,  in 
truth,  relieves  mine  from  seeking  to  refute  the  asser- 
tions that  it  makes,  all  of  them  without  plausible 
foundation. 


495 

I  deem  it  necessary,  nevertheless,  to  make  it  clear 
to  you  that  my  Government,  taking  its  stand  on  the 
general  principles  of  international  law,  has  proceeded 
to  expel  from  Tacna  and  Arica  Peruvian  priests  that 
sought  incumbencies — as  you  yourself  say — without 
the  proper  supreme  authorization,  thus  deliberately 
violating  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  Republic. 

Their  continuance  in  Tacna  and  Arica  in  the  exer- 
cise of  their  functions  would  not  have  merited  any  ob- 
servation whatsoever,  if,  like  the  other  priests,  na- 
tional and  foreign,  that  live  in  the  country,  they  had 
respected  the  laws  and  recognized  the  authorities  that 
govern  it.  There  is  no  reason,  therefore — as  you  sug- 
gest— for  an  act  of  reparation  on  the  part  of  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Chile  that  is,  in  reality,  incumbent  on  those 
that  violated  the  laws. 

I  take  this  opportunity  to  offer  to  you  the  assurances 
of  my  distinguished  consideration. 

Agustin  Edwards. 
To  His  Excellency, 

Senor  Don  Arturo  Garcia  Salazar, 
Charge  d  'Affaires  of  Peru. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  to  Minister  of 
Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 

[Translation.] 
(Telegram.) 

Lima,  November  10, 1912. 
My  Government  desires  to  renew  cordial  and  stable 
relations  with  that  of  Your  Excellency,  with  a  view  to 
national  prosperity  and  the  higher  interests  of 
America.  Animated  by  a  desire  to  end  the  dispute 
over  Tacna  and  Arica,  I  propose  to  Your  Excellency, 


496 

at  once,  to  postpone  until  1933  the  plebiscite,  which  will 
be  effected  under  the  direction  of  boards  formed  by 
a  committee  that  will  proceed  by  a  majority  vote  and 
will  be  composed  of  five  delegates,  namely :  two  Chile- 
ans appointed  by  Chile,  two  Peruvians  appointed  by 
Peru  and  the  the  President  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
Justice  of  Chile,  who  will  serve  as  chairman.  Persons 
born  in  Tacna  and  Arica  and  Chileans  and  Peruvians 
that  may  have  resided  for  three  years  in  the  territory 
will  be  entitled  to  vote.  All  the  voters  must  be  able  to 
read  and  write.  As  soon  as  Your  Excellency  shall 
signify  to  me  by  cable  your  acceptance  of  these  designs, 
and  we  shall  also  have  ratified  them  by  cable,  we  shall 
accredit  a  Minister  Plenipotentiary,  who  shall  con- 
tribute to  the  immediate  formalization  of  this  conven- 
tion and  shall  seek  to  carry  into  effect  mutually  ad- 
vantageous arrangements  in  respect  of  commerce  and 
navigation. 

Wenceslao  Valera. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile  to  Minister  of 
Foreign  Relations  of  Peru. 

[Translation.] 
(Telegram.) 

Santiago,  November  10, 1912. 

My  Government  desires  to  renew  cordial  and  stable 
relations  with  that  of  Your  Excellency,  with  a  view  to 
national  prosperity  and  the  higher  interests  of 
America.  Animated  by  a  desire  to  end  the  dispute 
over  Tacna  and  Arica,  I  propose  to  Your  Excellency, 
at  once,  to  postpone  until  1933  the  plebiscite,  which 


497 

will  be  effected  under  the  direction  of  boards  formed 
by  a  committee  that  will  proceed  by  a  majority  vote 
and  will  be  composed  of  five  delegates,  namely:  two 
Chileans  appointed  by  Chile,  two  Peruvians  appointed 
by  Peru  and  the  President  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
Justice  of  Chile,  who  will  serve  as  chairman.  Persons 
born  in  Tacna  and  Arica  and  Chileans  and  Peruvians 
that  may  have  resided  for  three  years  in  the  territory 
will  be  entitled  to  vote.  All  the  voters  must  be  able  to 
read  and  write.  As  soon  as  Your  Excellency  shall 
signify  to  me  by  cable  your  acceptance  of  these  designs, 
and  we  shall  also  have  ratified  them  by  cable,  we  shall 
accredit  a  Minister  Plenipotentiary,  who  shall  con- 
tribute to  the  immediate  formalization  of  this  conven- 
tion and  shall  seek  to  carry  into  effect  mutually  ad- 
vantageous arrangements  in  respect  of  commerce  and 
navigation.  My  Government,  desiring  to  strengthen 
its  commercial  ties  with  Peru,  will  deliver  to  Your  Ex- 
cellency five  hundred  thousand  pounds  sterling,  which 
the  Government  of  Peru  will  be  able  freely  to  invest. 

I  courteously  salute  Your  Excellency. 

Antonio  Httneeus. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  to  Minister  of 
Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 

[Translation.] 
(Telegram.) 

Lima,  November  10, 1912. 

I  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  Your  Excellency's  cable 
message  under  date  of  today,  in  which  Your  Excel- 
lency expresses  your  desire  that  stable  and  cordial  re- 


498 

lations  shall  be  renewed  between  the  Governments  of 
Peru  and  Chile.  At  the  same  time  Your  Excellency 
is  pleased  to  mention  the  bases  on  which  Your  Excel- 
lency desires  to  end  the  dispute  over  Tacna  and  Arica. 
In  reply  to  your  courteous  cable  message,  I  take 
pleasure  in  sincerely  and  earnestly  confirming  to 
Your  Excellency,  in  all  its  parts,  my  cable  message  of 
today  in  which  I  express  to  Your  Excellency  the  same 
desire  in  respect  of  the  reestablishment  of  our  rela- 
tions, and  I  propose,  as  to  the  plebiscite  of  Tacna  and 
Arica,  its  postponement  until  1933  and  its  celebration 
under  boards  formed  by  a  committee  that  will  be  com- 
posed of  five  delegates,  namely:  two  Chileans  ap- 
pointed by  Chile,  two  Peruvians,  appointed  by  Peru 
and  the  President  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Justice  of 
Chile,  who  will  serve  as  chairman.  Persons  born  in 
Tacna  and  Arica  and  Chileans  and  Peruvians  that  may 
have  resided  for  three  years  in  the  territory  will  be  en- 
titled to  vote.  All  the  voters  must  be  able  to  read  and 
write.  As  a  consequence,  my  Government  shall  pro- 
ceed to  accredit  a  Minister  Plenipotentiary,  who  shall 
contribute  to  the  immediate  formalization  of  this  con- 
vention and  shall  seek  to  carry  into  effect  mutually  ad- 
vantageous arrangements  for  commerce  and  naviga- 
tion. 

Accept,  Your  Excellency,  my  most  sincere  and  dis- 
tinguished consideration. 

Wenceslao  Valeba, 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 


499 

Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  to  Minister  of 
Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 

[Translation.] 
(Telegram.) 

Lima,  November  10, 1912. 

The  five  hundred  thousand  sterling  pounds  in  the 
form  proposed  by  Your  Excellency  by  cable  of  this 
date  accepted. 

Wenceslao  Valeka. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 


Minister ,  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile  to  Minister  of 
Foreign  Relations  of  Peru. 

[Translation.] 
(Telegram.) 

Santiago,  November  10, 1912. 

I  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  Your  Excellency's 
cable  message  under  date  of  today,  in  which  Your  Ex- 
cellency expresses  your  desire  that  stable  and  cordial 
relations  shall  be  renewed  between  the  Governments  of 
Peru  and  Chile.  At  the  same  time  Your  Excellency 
is  pleased  to  mention  the  bases  on  which  Your  Excel- 
lency desires  to  end  the  dispute  over  Tacna  and  Arica. 
In  reply  to  your  courteous  cable  message,  I  take 
pleasure  in  sincerely  and  earnestly  confirming  to  Your 
Excellency,  in  all  its  parts,  my  cable  message  of  today 
in  which  I  express  to  Your  Excellency  the  same  desire 
in  respect  of  the  reestablishment  of  our  relations,  and 
I  propose,  as  to  the  plebiscite  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  its 
postponement  until  1933  and  its  celebration  under 
boards  formed  by  a  committee  that  will  be  composed 


500 

of  five  delegates,  namely:  two  Chileans  appointed  by 
Chile,  two  Peruvians  appointed  by  Peru  and  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Justice  of  Chile,  who 
will  serve  as  chairman.  Persons  born  in  Tacna  and 
Arica  and  Chileans  and  Peruvians  that  may  have  re- 
sided for  three  years  in  the  territory  will  be  entitled 
to  vote.  All  the  voters  must  be  able  to  read  and  write. 
As  soon  as  I  receive  Your  Excellency's  cabled  reply  to 
the  present  cable  message,  my  Government  will  pro- 
ceed to  accredit  a  Minister  Plenipotentiary,  who  shall 
contribute  to  the  immediate  formalization  of  this  con- 
vention and  shall  seek  to  carry  into  effect  mutually  ad- 
vantageous arrangements  for  commerce  and  naviga- 
tion. I  note  that,  as  is  said  in  Your  Excellency's  second 
telegram,  of  the  date  of  today,  Your  Excellency's  Gov- 
ernment accepts  the  five  hundred  thousand  pounds 
that  my  Government  offers  it,  in  the  manner  proposed 
by  my  Government. 

Accept,  Your  Excellency,  my  highest  and  most  dis- 
tinguished consideration. 

Antonio  Htjneeus. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru. 


Secret  Message  of  President  Billinghurst  to  Congress 
of  Peru,  Delivered  on  the  30th  of  November,  1912. 

[Translation.] 

My  Government  has  just  agreed  by  cable,  recipro- 
cally with  the  Government  of  Chile,  and  on  the  same 
day,  the  10th  instant,  to  reestablish  the  diplomatic  re- 
lations that  were  broken  off  and  has  agreed  at  the 
same   time    relative    to   the   bases    of   the   plebiscite 


501 

that  must  decide,  in  a  definite  manner,  the  future 
of  our  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  occupied  by 
Chile,  the  former  since  May  26,  1880,  and  the  latter 
since  the  date  unforgettable  because  of  the  intensity  of 
its  unparalleled  glory,  the  7th  of  June  of  the  same 
year. 

You  know,  Honorable  Congressmen,  the  painful 
problem  that  has  been  developing  with  reference  to  the 
retention  of  that  portion  of  our  territory,  a  problem 
known  by  all  America  and  the  solution  of  which,  in 
harmony  with  the  rights  and  the  expectations  of  Peru, 
was  becoming  more  remote,  in  view  of  the  nature  of 
the  course  of  events  imposed  by  a  war  favorable  to 
Chile,  by  the  extent  and  the  weight  of  her  material 
strength,  by  the  activity  and  the  resources  of  her  Chan- 
cellery, by  the  coolness,  the  indifference  and  the  toler- 
ance of  the  other  States  of  the  continent,  which,  if  any 
came  to  interfere  as  an  expression  of  sympathy  for  our 
cause  did  so  cautiously  and  in  order  to  endorse  the 
idea,  stated  by  Chile  and  accepted  by  our  Chancellery, 
of  solving  the  conflict  by  means  of  dividing  the  occu- 
pied territory  giving  Arica  to  Chile  and  Tacna  remain- 
ing for  Peru. 

To  me,  Honorable  Congressmen,  who  had  the  honor 
to  carry  on  the  negotiations  in  1898  resulting  in 
the  Treaty  known  as  the  ' '  Billinghurst-Latorre 
Treaty,' '  any  scheme  of  division  could  not  but  mean 
the  carrying  out  in  itself  of  the  unjustified  abrogation 
of  our  rights  and  with  it  the  abdication  of  the  national 
dignity. 

And  notwithstanding  this  fact  our  Chancellery  at- 
tempted, I  must  repeat,  to  obtain  the  backing  of  other 
nations  in  support  of  a  division,  a  scheme  that,  un- 
fortunately, was  found  to  be  the  most  convenient  for- 


502 

mula  for  putting  an  end  to  the  questions  relating  to 
the  sovereignty  of  the  "captive"  provinces. 

The  course  of  time  and  the  failure  of  the  negotia- 
tions, anxiously  carried  on  for  the  purpose  of  putting 
an  end  to  the  question  proved  in  themselves  that  not 
even  that  formula  would  be  acceptable  to  the  interna- 
tional policy  of  Chile,  which  found  occasion  to  empha- 
size, without  concealment,  her  intention  to  definitely 
incorporate  the  "captive"  provinces  within  her  do- 
main by  means  of  a  one-sided  plebiscite  and  to  give 
them  representation  in  Congress,  as  any  other  of  the 
Chilean  provinces. 

Broken,  on  the  other  hand,  the  diplomatic  relations 
of  Peru  with  Chile,  a  difficult  and  uncertain  situation 
was  created  for  us,  because,  since  that  moment  we  have 
had,  on  our  international  horizon  all  the  shadows,  the 
menaces  and  the  dangers  coming  from  Bolivia,  Ecua- 
dor and  Colombia,  thus  forming,  in  an  intolerable  man- 
ner throughout  the  American  world,  an  atmosphere 
that  has  become  completely  unfavorable  to  Peru. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  will  soon  give 
you,  in  detail,  for  your  more  perfect  understanding, 
all  the  data  concerned  with  the  short  synopsis  I  am 
placing  before  you,  in  order  to  slightly  refer  to  ques- 
tions with  which  you  are  already  familiar  and  that  be- 
cause of  their  great  and  almost  world-wide  publicity, 
must  be  known  to  you,  they  not  being  a  secret  in  their 
main  points  to  anyone  who  has  had  the  opportunity  to 
observe  the  international  life  of  Peru  during  the  last 
three  years  of  her  existence. 

In  the  meantime,  imperative  duties  force  us  to  look 
at  the  present  situation  without  prejudice,  without 
illusions,  without  fantasies,  without  passion,  but  only 
in  the  light  of  reality  so  as  to  point  with  keenness  and 
patriotism  to  the  truthful  course  of  its  future :  and  not 


503 

in  the  heat  of  sentiment,  which  'blinds  and  misleads  but 
with  the  bright  clarity  of  reason  which,  endorsed  by 
serene  and  profound  meditation,  solves  all  in  the  best 
possible  way,  without  renouncing  the  highest  expecta- 
tions of  the  future. 

In  the  light  of  truth,  appreciating  with  upright  and 
serene  mind  the  grave  problem  of  Tacna  and  Arica, 
considering  its  antecedents  and  the  irrevocable  char- 
acter of  the  facts,  which  although  it  is  possible  to  ap- 
preciate them  in  different  ways  in  regard  to  their  form 
and  meaning,  it  is  impossible  in  any  way  to  destroy 
them ;  that  problem  can  only  be  solved  as  it  now  stands, 
either  by  the  use  of  force,  that  is,  by  war  declared  by 
Peru,  or  by  the  adoption  of  diplomatic  methods  that, 
without  overlooking  her  rights,  and  without  loss  of 
honor,  would  allow  our  country  in  the  course  of  time 
to  solve  the  present  difficulties  and  prepare,  with  all 
the  energies  of  her  patriotism  for  the  coming  of  an 
epoch  which  would  place  her  in  a  position  to  reconquer, 
fairly  and  legally  in  peace-time  that  which,  for  differ- 
ent reasons,  was  unfortunately  lost  in  war. 

The  former — the  recourse  to  arms — is  a  question 
which  cold  facts  reject  in  view  of  the  indisputable 
military  superiority  of  Chile,  as  well  as  the  uncertain 
state  of  relations  between  Peru  and  her  neighboring 
countries,  over  which  a  powerful  and  decisive  influence 
is  being  exercised  by  the  persevering  policy  of  Chile. 

There  only  remains  the  other  alternative,  exhausted 
as  are,  with  profoundly  discouraging  results,  all  the 
other  recourses  tried  from  the  attempted  arbitration 
in  Mexico  to  the  above  mentioned  scheme  of  dividing 
Tacna  and  Arica  between  Chile  and  Peru. 

To  accept,  on  the  other  hand,  the  continuance  of  the 
present  state  in  which  Chile  exercises  dominion  in  a 
way  depressing  and  humiliating  for  Peru,  is  to  deliber- 


504 

ately  consent,  before  the  entire  world,  to  the  maintain- 
ing of  that  dominion  without  the  slightest  hope  of  ob- 
taining in  the  future,  in  the  continent,  either  justifica- 
tion or  sympathy  for  our  cause. 

My  Government  has  decided,  then,  frankly  and 
steadfastly,  for  the  second  alternative,  sure  that  the 
chosen  way  is  in  obedience  to  the  same  spirit  that  pre- 
vails in  the  Billinghurst-Latorre  Treaty  of  1898,  that 
is  to  prepare  the  field  for  the  exercising  of  our  rights, 
always  under  the  protection  of  the  national  honor. 

The  diplomatic  agreement  of  which  I  have  the  honor 
to  inform  you,  substitutes,  ipso  facto,  reality,  that  is,  a 
situation  unqualifiable  and  detrimental  for  a  position 
of  right  that  at  the  present  moment  saves  the  honor  of 
the  country;  a  position  which  signifies  respect  and 
guaranty  to  the  inhabitants,  and  as  a  result,  the  ex- 
plicit acknowledgment  of  our  sovereignty  for  so  long 
discussed. 

The  agreement  with  Chile  referred  to  is,  in  brief,  as 
follows: 

First:    Eesumption  of  diplomatic  relations. 

Second:  Bases  for  the  plebiscite  that  shall  be  car- 
ried out  so  as  to  definitely  determine  the  future  na- 
tionality of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

Third:  The  date  on  which  the  plebiscite  shall  take 
place. 

Fourth :  The  amount  of  money  that  Chile  proposes 
to  hand  over. 

The  simultaneous  reestablishment  of  diplomatic  re- 
lations, that  has  just  been  taking  place,  substantially 
changes  the  position  of  Peru,  as  I  have  already  stated, 
placing  it  on  an  equal  footing  with  Chile  so  as  to  at- 
tempt a  definite  solution  under  the  shadow  of  peace, 
and  in  the  exercise  of  her  recognized  rights. 


505 

This  circumstance  implies,  furthermore,  a  total 
change  of  tactics  in  the  international  policy  of  Chile, 
since  it  puts  aside  here  reiterated  pretensions,  in  re- 
gard to  the  understanding  not  only  of  the  text,  but  of 
the  spirit  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  maintained  in  all  its 
parts  and  in  every  possible  way,  with  persistence  and 
uniformity  by  her  statesmen  during  the  course  of  thirty 
years,  and  according  to  which  the  above  mentioned 
Treaty  would  not  mean,  so  far  as  Tacna  and  Arica  are 
concerned,  but  a  carefully  simulated  territorial  ces- 
sion. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  reestablishment  of  diplo- 
matic relations,  putting  an  end  to  a  de  facto  situation, 
in  the  different  phases  of  its  existence,  highly  unfavor- 
able to  Peru,  is  not  in  truth,  an  act  that  is  not,  in  itself, 
detrimental  and  since  it  is  not  detrimental  it  may  be 
stated  that  that  fact  is  favorable  for  the  present  and 
the  future  of  the  country. 

It  is  possible  that  the  spirit  of  suspicion  or  of  obses- 
sion will  awaken  doubts  or  cast  shadows  on  the  field 
that  has  been  discovered  but  the  strength  of  the  facts 
shall  dispel  those  doubts ;  and  the  light  of  truth,  pene- 
trating the  consciousness,  will  remove  all  the  shadows 
that,  in  good  faith  or  maliciously,  might  be  projected. 

For  the  high-minded  spirits  who  have  a  clear  vision 
of  the  country,  the  reestablishment  of  the  diplomatic 
relations  with  Chile,  and  the  agreement  that  brings  it 
about,  are  not  a  sudden  isolated  fact,  without  solid 
foundation,  without  guarantees  of  real  consequences. 

The  recent  facts,  relative  to  the  meeting  in  this 
capital  of  the  Students  Congress,  showed  the  culture 
of  our  social  classes  and  the  tact  and  fairness  of  our 
people,  who  with  their  civil  and  friendly  attitude  knew 
how  to  win  the  enthusiastic  approval  of  the  Govern- 
ment, society,  and  the  popular  classes  of  Chile.    And 


506 

thus,  the  parade  with  which  the  cities  of  Santiago  and 
Valparaiso  honored  our  Independence,  and  the  cour- 
tesy and  the  sympathy  shown  to  the  crew  of  the  S.  S. 
I  quit  os  in  Punta  Arenas  are  proof  that  the  atmos- 
phere heated  by  the  violent  passions,  is  becoming 
transformed  in  an  environment  of  cordiality,  justice 
and  respect. 

If  there  are  still  to  be  found  in  Chile  spirits  heated 
and  biased  against  Peru,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  they 
are  in  a  very  small  minority,  as  is  shown  and  confirmed 
by  the  attitude  of  the  Government  of  Chile,  the  mani- 
festations of  her  society,  and  the  almost  unanimous 
opinion  of  her  press* 

I  must  add  to  what  has  already  been  said,  that  the 
manifestations  I  allude  to  on  the  part  of  Chile  are  by 
no  means  a  surprise  to  me,  since,  when  I  had  the  op- 
portunity to  act  in  the  negotiations  of  the  Protocol  of 
1898,  I  had  occasion  to  find  in  the  best  circles  of 
Chilean  society,  many  people  of  high  position,  with  a 
decided  inclination  for  friendship  with  Peru,  which 
explains  the  success  that  I  had  in  the  carrying  out  of 
the  negotiations,  and  in  which  as  it  has  been  said  and 
proven,  I  always  looked  for  that  that  might  be  more 
advantageous  for  the  honor  and  interests  of  my  coun- 
try. And  as,  when  in  her  service  I  have  never  con- 
cealed my  thoughts  nor  my  conduct  in  the  arcanum  of 
mystery,  and  in  order  to  confirm  my  statements  as  well 
as  for  the  purpose  that  you,  with  your  high-minded- 
ness  may  be  able  to  form  an  exact  judgment  upon  this 
matter,  I  will  read  the  pertinent  paragraphs  of  the  pri- 
vate letter  addressed  to  me  on  December  7, 1898,  by  the 
President  of  the  Eepublic  of  Chile,  His  Excellency 
Don  Federico  Errazuriz,  and  which  reads  as  follows ; 


507 

"I  consider  it  almost  useless  to  express  to  you 
my  true*  regret  because  the  protocol  signed  by 
you  and  Sefior  Latorre,  fixing  the  manner  for  the 
compliance  with  what  has  been  stipulated  in  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon  with  respect  to  the  provinces 
of  Tacna  and  Arica,  has  not  yet  been  passed  in 
the  Chamber  of  Deputies. 

"This  business  has  been  made  by  some  into  a 
political  question  and  others,  interested  in  the 
payment  of  the  Bolivian  credits,  objected  thereto, 
believing  that  after  an  agreement  with  Peru  had 
been  made,  they  would  lose  all  hopes  of  getting 
their  money. 

"Then,  there  presented  themselves  the  last 
complications  of  the  Argentine  question  which 
completely  absorbed  the  attention  of  the  Govern- 
ment, of  the  Congress,  and  of  public  opinion,  and 
that  has  at  last  been  solved  in  the  manner  known 
to  you. 

"These  things  have  been  overlooked  in  Peru, 
as  also  they  have  forgotten  that  our  Chambers 
are  governed  by  the  most  unfortunate  of  regu- 
lations, making  it  possible  for  a  small  minority 
to  obstruct  the  passing  of  any  project. 

"I  overlooked  to  tell  you  that  the  Cabinet 
crisis  in  which  I  find  myself  at  present,  caused  by 
the  resignation  of  Senor  Latorre  and  his  Balma- 
cedista  colleague  began  before  the  Argentine 
question  was  ended  and  it  has  been  another  ob- 
stacle to  the  prompt  consideration  of  the  Tacna- 
Arica  problem  immediately  upon  the  closing  of  the 
Puna  de'Atacama  question. 

"In  the  belief  that  the  pending  pacts  with  Bo- 
livia interfere  in  no  way  with  your  protocol,  we 
have  ordered  the  liquidation  of  the  credits  of  that 
country  so  that  both  questions  can  be  jointly  dis- 
cussed and  approved.  The  said  liquidation  is  al- 
most concluded  and  I  hope  that  before  the  close 
of  the  special  sessions  we  shall  approve  both-nego- 
tiations. 


508 

"You  know  my  own  ideas  about  the   subject 
and  from  what  I  have  done  you  will  believe  that 
•   I  wish  for  my  country  the  most  cordial  friend- 
ship with  Peru. 

"I  have  been  deeply  preoccupied  with  your  po- 
litical stand  as  given  me  by  letters  and  telegrams 
of  Jose  Domingo  Amunategui,  who  is  one  of  my 
best  friends,  and  I  am  sure  that  your  resource- 
fulness will  have  overcome  all  the  obstacles  which 
.  presented  themselves.  I  close,  wishing  you  and 
your  family  every  happiness,  and  I  offer  myself 
as  your  friend  in  all  that  may  be  useful  to  you. 

Federico  Errazuriz.  ' ' 

Confirming  the  statements  contained  in  the  above 
letter,  I  quote  in  part,  the  correspondence  that  I  re- 
ceived on  the  same  day  from  the  Charge  of  the  Lega- 
tion of  Peru  in  Santiago,  Don  Manuel  F.  Benavides, 
and  which  says : 

"  Legation  of  Peru  in  Chile,  — December  6,  1898. 
"Senor  Don  Guillermo  Billinghurst. 

" Honored  Sir  and  Distinguished  Friend: 

i  t  *  #  #  #  #  * 

"We  (Seiiores  Errazuriz  and  Benavides)  talked 
after  a  few  moments ;  he  began  by  expressing  his 
surprise  at  the  course  of  events  relative  to  the 
opposition  that  your  candidacy  has  excited.  T  an- 
swered him  that  in  my  opinion  your  triumph  was 
very  probable  and  that  the  passing  of  the  proto- 
col would  completely  assure  it,  giving  you  great 
prestige. 

"He  told  me  that  he  insisted  that  our  conven- 
tion be  approved  as  soon  as  possible,  that  he  had 
just  read  a  note  of  mine  asking  for  a  solving  of 
this  question  but  that  politics  were  in  such  an 
entanglement  that  I  should  be  a  little  more  patient, 
that  in  his  opinion  all  the  opposition  to  the  pro- 
tocol was  caused  by  questions  of  private  interests 
and  that  an  agreement  with  the  creditors  of  Bo- 


509 

livia  was  a  necessary  formality;  that  all  those 
accounts  had  been  liquidated  except  that  of  an 
American  concern,  which  was  demanding  an  ex- 
orbitant amount  of  money,  and  for  the  prompt 
close  of  this  question  cabled  instructions  had  been 
sent  to  the  Minister  in  Washington. 

"He  assured  me  that  as  soon  as  this  question 
was  closed  the  Government  would  ask  preference 
to  be  given  to  the  discussion  of  the  Peruvian  and 
Bolivian  Protocols  and  that  both  would  be  simul- 
taneously passed  without  difficulty,  which  he  as- 
sured me  would  take  place  before  the  close  of  the 
special  session  of  Congress. 

"He  assured  me  also,  that  he  already  knew,  by 
letter  of  Matias  Errazuriz,  the  judgment  to  be 
given  by  the  Queen  of  Spain,  who,  the  case  hav- 
ing been  placed  before  her,  would  decide  that  the 
vote  only  be  given  to  those  born  in  the  provinces 
of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

"He  linished  by  saying  that  nothing  would  be 
more  agreeable  to  him  than  the  general  solution 
of  this  problem  with  Peru." 

The  preceding  paragraphs  of  Sehor  Benavides'  let- 
ter showed  that  His  Excellency  Sehor  Errazuriz,  at 
the  end  of  the  year  1898,  knew  that  the  judgment  of 
the  Queen  of  Spain,  in  case  the  plebiscite  protocol 
had  been  submitted  to  Her  Majesty,  would  have  been 
entirely  favorable  to  Peru.  In,  spite  of  this  the  Pres- 
ident of  Chile,  as  may  be  inferred  from  the  personal 
letter  quoted  by  me,  did  not  change  his  attitude  of 
mind  in  regard  to  the  fulfillment  of  the  Billinghurst- 
Latorre  Protocol.    • 

The  bases  established  in  the  agreement  that  is  at 
present  being  discussed  settled  the  way  and  the  form 
for  the  carrying  out  of  the  plebiscite,  determining  the 
date  on  which  it  shall  take  place,  for  the  purpose  of 
knowing,  in  the  last  instance,  the  will  of  the  provinces 


510 

of  Tacna  and  Arica  with  reference  to  the  nationality 
they  desired  to  adopt.  The  absence  of  these  bases, 
set  forth  as  they  are  in  a  vague  manner  in  Article  III 
of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  has  been  one  of  the  causes, 
if  not  the  pretext,  that  Chile  has  had  for  continuing 
the  occupation  de  facto  of  that  part  of  our  territory, 
thus  exceeding  the  ten  year  period  of  possession  re- 
ferred to  in  the  same  article. 

Would  it  be  convenient  for  Peru  to  prolong  such 
a  state  of  affairs,  not  only  indefinite  so  far  as  period 
of  time  is  concerned,  but  even  vexatious  to  her  dignity 
and  pride,  because,  it  only  remains  for  Peru  to  pro- 
test, although  without  result,  and  to  sadly  contemplate 
the  reign  of  might  that  at  last  has  forced  upon  our 
countrymen,  sons  or  residents,  in  the  held  provinces 
the  unbearable  position  of  outlaws,  leaving  them  with- 
out right,  without  guaranties  and  without  the  pro- 
tection of  their  country? 

This  agreement  intended  to  obviate  such  a  regret- 
table situation  by  suppressing  the  cause  and  the  pre- 
text  which  have  created  and  maintained  it,  because  the 
date  having  been  named  and  the  definite  conditions 
for  a  plebiscite  having  been  set  forth,  the  repetition 
of  the  uncertainties  of  the  past  and  of  the  difficulties 
of  the  present  are  definitely  avoided. 

In  conformity  with  the  bases  agreed  to,  Peru  has 
been  assured  of  the  right  to  vote  for  all  those  born 
in  Tacna  and  Arica  with  or  without  residence  in  those 
provinces  and  the  same  right  is  granted  to  the  Peru- 
vians not  born  there,  and  to  the  Chileans,  provided 
either  have  at  least  a  three  years  residence  on  the 
date  of  the  plebiscitary  votation. 

A  period  of  twenty-one  years  has  been  agreed  to 
for  the  carrying  out  of  the  plebiscte,  too  long  a  period 
if  we  consider  it  from  the  sentiment  of  nationality — 


511 

a  reasonable  period  if  we  consider  it  in  the  light  of 
the  present  facts  and  the  dictates  of  foresight. 

Would  the  immediate  carding  out  of.  the  plebiscite 
be  suitable  for  Peru?  To  endorse  this  statement  would 
mean  taking  the  daring  resolution  of  legalizing,  with- 
out advantage  and  in  a  precipitate  and  inconceivable 
manner,  the  occupation  by  Chile.  To  believe  this  it 
is  only  necessary  to  look  at  it  with  open  eyes  and 
a  clear  conscience. 

After  a  long  time  has  elapsed  and  after  the  events 
have  taken  place,  caused  first  by  disasters  and  then 
by  the  efforts  and  aimless  attempts  of  our  Chancel- 
lery ;  and  considering  the  economic  position  of  the  Re- 
public, some  time  must  necessarily  elapse  before  the 
consolidation  of  her  public  institutions,  the  strengthen- 
ing of  her  finances,  before  her  energies  are  restored, 
and  her  morale  raised  so  as  at  last  to  place  our 
country  in  a  condition  for  fighting  and  victory.  And 
in  the  life  of  a  nation  this  is  certainly  not  the  work 
of  a  moment. 

When  a  country  has  fallen  so  low,  and  when  it  is 
only  possible  to  revive  by  means  of  her  own  efforts, 
she  must  do  so  in  a  manner  that  will  avoid  the  re- 
petition of  such  a  fall,  and  climb  up  with  a  sure  and 
firm  step,  although  it  be  slow. 

If  we  look,  then,  to  the  real  importance  of  the  con- 
siderations stated,  we  must  agree  that  they  are  the 
outcome  of  the  present  situation,  and  that  they  are 
the  reasonings  of  a  practical  mind  that  cannot  be 
objected  to  by  the  most  exalted  patriot  and  that  they 
take  into  account,  as  far  as  possible,  the  interests  of 
Peru,  instead  of  the  present  difficulties,  disadvantages 
and  dangers  of  all  kinds. 

If  the  present  plebiscite  bases  are  compared,  with 
serene  impartiality,  with  those  proposed  by  the  Chan- 


512 

cellery  of  Chile  to  the  Chancellery  of  Peru,  in  official 
communication  of  March  3,  1910,  the  great  differences 
to  be  found  between  them  can  be  pointed  out  at  first 
glance  such  as,  the  qualifications  of  the  voters  com- 
prising Peruvians,  Chileans  and  foreigners  with  only 
a  six  months '  residence;  such  as  the  period  for  the 
carrying  out  of  the  plebiscite,  fixing  it  when  almost  all 
the  Peruvian  population  that  should  have  polled  their 
votes  would  have  been  absent,  for  reasons  of  open 
hostilities,  from  the  provinces  held  by  Chile;  such  as 
the  organization  of  the  electoral  commission  in  which 
only  one  Peruvian  was  allowed  as  a  member,  the  other 
two  being  a  Chilean  and  a  foreigner,  the  latter  elected 
by  the  Consular  Board  of  Tacna,  and  the  Presidency 
of  the  Electoral  Commission  to  be  vested  in  the  dele- 
gate of  the  Government  of  Chile. 

There  is  a  substantial  difference  between  the  bases 
proposed  on  that  former  occasion  and  those  proposed 
at  present  and  the  difference  of  method  is  even  more 
evident,  if  we  remember  the  earnest  action  of  our 
Chancellery  in  order  to  solve  the  fate  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  by  means  of  a  territorial  division,  as  I  have  al- 
ready stated.  The  Electoral  Commission  of  this  plebi- 
scite, according  to  this  last  agreement,  shall  be  com- 
posed of  two  representatives  of  Peru  and  two  of  Chile, 
presided  over  by  the  President  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  Justice  of  the  latter  nation.  As  far  as  time  is  con- 
cerned twenty-one  years  shall  elapse, — a  period  of 
time  in  which  the  Peruvian  element  will  enjoy  in 
Tacna  and  Arica,  as  in  any  other  part  of  Chile,  all  the 
rights  and  guaranties  accorded  to  foreign  residents  by 
the  Constitution  and  other  laws  of  that  country, — a  pe- 
riod of  time  in  which,  thanks  to  peaceful  relations 
maintained  by  reciprocal  interests,  will  surely  allow, 
by  reason  of  the  good  name  of  the  two  nations  and  as 


513 

homage  to  the  harmony  and  civilization  of  the  country, 
the  fulfillment  of  its  designs,  both  countries  being  in- 
spired by  the  dictates  of  justice  and  fair  dealing. 

The  obligation  contracted  by  Chile  dealt  with  by  me 
in  the  first  part  of  this  message,  to  give  to  Peru  the 
sum  of  500,000  pounds  sterling  is  at  present  put  aside. 
This  circumstance  would  pardon  me  for  giving  it 
further  consideration  at  this  time,  but  that  obligation 
appeared  in  the  agreement  of  the  10th  instant  and  for 
the  same  reason  I  believe  that  you  should  know  the 
causes  of  its  origin  and  the  motives  that,  to  my  deep 
regret,  have  induced  me  to  disregard  it. 

In  the  preliminary  negotiations  that  reciprocally 
and  necessarily  took  place  for  the  consummation  of  the 
agreement  we  have  under  consideration,  my  Govern- 
ment demanded  of  Chile  an  annual  payment  of  30,000 
pounds  sterling  as  a  rent  for  the  territories  of  Tacna 
and  Arica  during  the  twenty-one  years  fixed  for  the 
carrying  out  of  the  plebiscite. 

The  Government  of  Chile  stated,  in  reply,  that  in- 
stead of  the  annual  payment,  it  would  give  in  one  in- 
stallment the  amount  indicated  above,  and  fixed  the 
500,000  pounds  sterling,  not  as  a  rent  but  as  a  man- 
ifestation of  the  desire  to  strengthen  her  commercial 
relations  with  Peru,  and  without  that  amount  having 
any  relation  to  the  10,000,000  pesos  referred  to  in 
Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  October  20,  1883.  In  this 
understanding  the  obligation  mentioned  above  was  re- 
corded in  the  agreement  of  the  10th  instant. 

My  Government,  nevertheless,  attentive  to  the  fears 
to  which  the  news  of  the  delivery  of  the  500,000 
pounds  sterling  gave  rise,  thought  it  proper  to  specify 
the  motives  for  this  payment  and  to  this  effect  in- 
formed the  Government  of  Chile  that  it  would  accept 
it  as  the  customs  revenues  of  Arica  and  Sama,  and 
for  no  other  reason. 


514 

As  the  Government  of  Chile  insisted  on  its  purpose 
stated  above,  the  last  formula  proposed  by  our 
Chancellery  was  without  result;  and,  furthermore 
with  the  purpose  of  obviating  any  difficulties  that 
could  retard  or  be  in  the  way  of  the  success  of  the 
agreement,  the  fundamental  bases  of  which  modify  in 
a  positive  manner  the  difficult  position  of  Peru  in 
this  debated  question,  my  Government  has  thought 
that  it  should  act  as  it  has,  eliminating  from  the  agree- 
ment the  delivery  of  the  500,000  pounds  sterling. 

To  be  able  to  appreciate  the  clauses  of  the  agree- 
ment in  its  entirety,  and  to  measure  its  scope,  it  is 
necessary  to  look  at  them  in  the  light  of  the  interests 
and  the  decorum  of  our  country,  for  which  purpose 
we  must  take  into  consideration  the  uncertainties  and 
the  dangers  of  the  present  moment. 

On  the  one  hand  we  have  the  de  facto  situation, 
unfavorable  to  Peru,  created  by  the  non-fulfillment  by 
Chile  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon. 

By  the  present  agreement  that  position  is  modified 
and  the  field  is  open  for  the  Peruvian  citizens  to  freely 
exercise  their  rights  under  the  protection  of  the  laws 
and  guaranties  offered  to  its  inhabitants  by  any  civil- 
ized country. 

By  this  same  agreement  the  occupation  of  Tacna 
and  Arica  has  no  longer  the  effect  of  a  pretended 
cession,  as  has  been  claimed  by  Chile,  but  of  an  es- 
sentially transitory  occupation  subject  to  a  definite 
period  of  time  and  to  the  results  of  a  plebiscite. 

The  hazardous  uncertainties  of  the  future,  as  a  con- 
sequence of  a  long  and  indefinite  occupation,  are  re- 
placed by  a  definite  period  of  time  within  which, — 
placing  in  its  proper  category  the  juridical  situation 
of  Chile  with  regard  to  Tacna  and  Arica, — the  ca- 
pacity of  this  nation  to  perform  acts  not  in  conformity 


515 

with  her  constitutional  provisions,  and  that  might  affect 
the  exercise  of  a  permanent  and  definite  sovereignty, 
is  annulled. 

Instead  of  the  failure  of  the  negotiations  carried 
on  in  America  for  intervention  or  cooperation  in  the 
solution  of  the  conflict,  in  the  sense  of  Peru  expressly 
resigning  the  most  valuable  part,  from  the  industrial 
and  economic  point  of  view,  of  the  occupied  territory  y 
this  agreement  offers  the  expectation  of  its  total  re- 
incorporation as  there  are  grounds  for  hoping,  if  the 
Peruvian  patriotism  puts  forth  all  its  available  re- 
sources during  the  twenty-one  years  that  will  elapse 
for  the  carrying  out  of  the  plebiscite. 

Within  this  period,  if  we  consider  the  great  deeds 
that  we  must  perform,  in  order  to  be  prepared  for  the 
opening  of  the  Panama  Canal,  Peru  will  be  able  to 
attain,  under  the  light  of  peace,  real  internal  progress, 
the  strengthening  of  her  economic  forces  and  her  mil- 
itary and  political  capacity,  thus  shortening  the  dis- 
tance that  at  present  separates  her  from  Chile,  which 
finds  herself  with  a  financial  standing  far  superior  to 
ours,  thanks  to  the  fabulous  indemnity  we  had  to  pay 
as  a  consequence  of  the  disastrous  war  of  1879. 

Reasons  of  economic  character  endorsing  the  agree- 
ment dealt  with  in  this  message  are  also  to  be  found: 

A.  Our  financial  standing  will  surely  never  reach 
the  development  claimed  by  the  necessities  and  as- 
pirations of  our  country,  while  we  are  made  uneasy 
because  of  the  controversy  with  Chile.  This  is  on 
everyone's  conscience  and  it  is  unnecessary  to  prove 
it. 

B.  The  exhaustion  of  our  resources  because  of  an 
armed  peace  and  an  exaggerated  militarization  takes 
away  from  useful  occupations  the  youth  of  the  nation. 

C.  The  advantages  derived  from  the  commercial  un- 


516 

derstanding  along  the  Pacafic  coast  must  be  taken  into 
consideration. 

D.  The  dangers  of  a  regime  of  competition  at  the 
opening  of  the  Panama  Canal  under  the  combined  ac- 
tion of  the.  other  countries  of  this  part  of  America  can- 
not be  overlooked. 

E.  On  the  other  hand  the  advantage  that  may  be 
derived  by  the  economic  interests  of  Peru  in  the  ter- 
ritory of  Tacna  and  Arica,  the  free  mercantile  and 
industrial  access  we  shall  have  to  those  markets,  and 
the  unavoidable  influence  over  the  Peruvian  national- 
ity in  those  territories,  shall  be  considered. 

F.  So,  in  regard  to  the  possible  neutralization  of 
the  competition  between  the  railways  from  Arica  to 
La  Paz  and  the  Mollendo  road,  the  protection  given 
to  private  Peruvian  interests  in  Tacna,  Arica  and  Tara- 
paca,  and  many  other  questions  of  the  same  nature, 
that  cannot  possibly  be  referred  to  in  the  rough 
scheme  of  the  agreement  I  am  placing  before  you 
for  discussion. 

The  press  of  the  Argentine  Republic,  which  with 
such  an  authoritative  voice  speaks  within  and  outside 
our  country,  approves  the  agreement  which  is  further- 
more in  accord  with  the  reiterated  insinuations  of 
respected  and  friendly  Chancelleries,  in  order  to  put 
an  end  to  our  troubles  wTith  Chile,  already  for  half 
a  century  attracting  the  attention  of  the  American 
continent. 

The  agreement  of  the  Chancellery  that  has  just 
come  into  existence,  is  by  its  nature  and  scope,  but  a 
preliminary  pact  consummated  under  the  conditions 
which  I  have  set  forth,  in  which  my  Government  has 
had  solely  in  mind  the  vehement  desire  to  clearly  and 
definitely  state  a  situation  where  the  rights  and  the 
honor  of  the  nation  will  be  predominating,  for  the 


517 

purpose  of  protecting  the  rights  and  the  expectations 
of  our  fellow  countrymen  of  Tacna  and  Arica.  I 
doubt  not  that  the  legislators  of  our  nation,  inspired 
with  high  sentiments  of  brotherly  love  and  justice, 
and  attentive  to  the  great  and  true  interests  of  our 
Fatherland,  far  above  all  other  interests,  regardless 
of  their  importance,  will  eventually  give  the  necessary 
approval  which  is  required  as  a  great  and  positive 
service  that  they  will  perform  in  deference  to  the 
future  of  Peru. 

As  we  are  dealing  with  the  most  important  prob- 
lem in  the  international  life  of  Peru  I  have  not  hes- 
itated to  come  before  you,  in  person,  so  that  when 
you  perform  your  august  functions  relative  to  the 
agreement  so  many  times  mentioned,  you  will  know 
in  studying  the  various  stipulations  the  purposes  and 
the  spirit — in  their  nature,  manner,  antecedents,  and 
details — animating  this  Government  which  are  not,  and 
can  never  be  but  the  purposes  and  spirit  of  an  un- 
flinchingly honest  conscience  only  desirous  and  am- 
bitious for  the  peace,  progress  and  the  greatness  of 
our  Eepublic. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations,  when  complying 
with  the  duty  imposed  by  the  Constitution  on  the  Gov- 
ernment, to  present  for  your  consideration  inter- 
national treaties,  will  place  before  you  all  the  data 
concerning  this  important  subject  that  may  be  of  in- 
terest to  you. 

So  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  can  only  say  to  you 
in  conclusion,  Honorable  Congressmen,  that  I  Jove 
my  country  as  can  only  those  who  have  struggled  for 
her  sovereignty  and  for  her  honor  in  war  and  in  peace. 

Lima,  November  30,  1912. 


518 

President  of  Chile  to  Confidential  Agent  of  Chile  Be- 
fore Government  of  Peru. 

[Translation.] 

Santiago,  August  16,  1920. 
Distinguished  Sir  and  Friend: 

I  have  been  informed  through  a  trustworthy  chan- 
nel, that  His  Excellency  the  President  of  Peru  cher- 
ishes the  desire  to  find  some  way  that  may  admit  of 
his  endeavoring  to  arrange  a  settlement  of  the  ques- 
tions which  divide  our  two  countries. 

As  I  have  learned  that  you  are  going  north  in  a 
few  days,  on  a  trip  for  your  health,  I  consider  that 
no  more  propitious  opportunity  could  be  afforded  for 
the  satisfaction  of  the  lofty  purpose  of  the  President 
of  Peru.  As  you  pass  through  Lima,  you  might  ar- 
range an  interview  with  His  Excellency  Sefior  Leguia 
and  discuss  that  important  matter  with  him  in  a  con- 
fidential way.  It  is  a  signal  good  fortune  that  the 
coincidence  of  your  trip  allows  me  to  avail  myself  of 
your  services  for  the  accomplishment  of  this  delicate 
mission.  You  who  have  discharged,  brilliantly,  on 
more  than  one  occasion,  the  office  of  Minister  of  Foreign 
Relations,  and  are  conversant  with  the  opinion  of 
this  Government  and  understand,  as  few  do,  the  an- 
tecedents of  the  problem, — you  are,  in  my  judgment, 
the  person  best  fitted  to  carry  through  the  charge 
which  I  venture  to  entrust  to  your  faithful  friendship, 
your  talents  and  your  patriotism. 

Juan  Luis  Sanfuentes. 
Seiior  Federico  Puga  Borne, 

Santiago. 


519 

Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile  to  Confidential 
Agent  of  Chile  Before  Government  of  Peru. 

[Translation.] 

Santiago,  August  17,  1920. 
Most  Highly  Esteemed  Sib  : 

In  accordance  with  the  desires  expressed  by  you, 
and  even  though  the  undersigned  does  not  consider 
it  necessary  to  give  any  special  instructions  for  the 
correct  and  faithful  accomplishment  of  the  mission 
that  carries  you  to  Lima,  this  Ministry  ventures  to 
offer  the  following  suggestions: 

"If,  as  the  result  of  your  conversations  with 
His  Excellency  Sefior  Leguia,  it  were  possible 
to  consider  a  friendly  and  direct  settlement  with 
the  Government  of  Peru,  and  if  you  should  seek 
to  come  to  an  agreement  with  that  object  in  view, 
please  proceed  in  accordance ,  with  the  purposes 
manifested  by  our  Government  to  that  of  Peru 
on  other  occasions,  by  keeping  yourself,  in  so 
far  as  possible,  within  the  lines  traced  out  in 
former  propositions  which  our  Government  may 
have  formulated  or  accepted,  especially  in'  the 
course  of  the  Vial  Solar-Jimenez,  Puga  Borne- 
Seoane  and  Huneeus-Varela  negotiations." 

I  deem  it  superfluous  to  state  that  this  recommenda- 
tion in  no  way  hinders  you  from  hearing  and  trans- 
mitting to  this  Department  any  other  idea  or  solution, 
that  may  be  submitted  to  you  and  which,  in  your 
opinion,  merits  being  taken  into  consideration,  on  ac- 
count of  favoring  our  interests  and  not  being  op- 
posed to  the  doctrines  which  Chile  has  always  sus- 
tained in  international  affairs  and,  especially,  in  re- 
spect to  our  differences  with  Peru,  derived  from  the 
interpretation  of  the  second  clause  of  Article  III,  of 
the  Ancon  Treaty. 

Luis  Aldtjnate. 
Senor  Don  Federico  Puga  Borne, 

Santiago. 


520 

Circular  of  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  to 
Ministers  of  Foreign  Relations  Abroad. 

[Translation.] 

Lima,  September  20, 1921. 
Mr.  Minister: 

The  Executive  of  Chile  has  promulgated,  under  date 
of  the  13th  of  the  present  month,  the  law  approved  by 
the  Congress  of  that  country  that  incorporates  the  de- 
partment of  Tarata,  created  nearly  ten  years  ago,  to 
that  of  Tacna,  which  it  possesses  precariously  by  vir- 
tue of  the  Peruvian-Chilean  Treaty  of  Peace  of  Oc- 
tober 20,  1883,  thus  effacing,  by  absorption,  a  terri- 
torial circumscription  which  it  never  had  a  right  to 
occupy  and  upon  the  restitution  of  which  to  its  legiti- 
mate owner  and  sovereign,  Peru,  an  old  diplomatic 
reclamation  initiated  immediately  after  the  ratification 
of  the  said  Treaty  of  Peace,  was  pending.  Such  a  vio- 
lent procedure  is  today  more  than  ever  before  incom- 
patible with  the  respect  due  to  the  power  of  interna- 
tional justice,  the  sway  of  which  upon  the  world  has 
consolidated  universal  conscience  as  one  of  the  great- 
est results  obtained  three  years  ago  by  the  allied  and 
associated  powers  in  the  most  formidable  war  that  has 
afflicted  humanity.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  I  have 
decided  to  place  this  grave  affair  before  Your  Excel- 
lency, although  it  is  in  itself  scarcely  a  detail  in  the 
transcendental  political  conflict  that  Chile  has  pro- 
voked in  America,  by  refusing  to  restore  the  territories 
of  which  she  stripped  Peru  after  the  War  of  the  Pa- 
cific, and  the  return  of  which  is  demanded  energetically 
by  my  Government. 

Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  of  October  20, 
1883,  prescribed  that  the  territory  of  the  provinces  of 
Tacna  and  Arica,  which  are  bounded  on  the  north  by 


521 

the  River  Sama,  from  its  source  in  the  mountains  limit- 
ing with  Bolivia,  to  its  outlet  into  the  sea,  would  con- 
tinue to  be  possessed  by  Chile  and  subject  to  Chilean 
legislation  and  authorities  during  a  term  of  ten  years, 
counted  from  the  ratification  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace, 
on  March  28,  1884. 

As  it  is  deduced  clearly  from  the  terms  of  that  Ar- 
ticle III,  only  the  two  Peruvian  provinces  of  Tacna  and 
Arica,  bounded  by  the  River  Sama,  passed  into  the  tem- 
porary possession  of  Chile.  That  this  was  so,  is  proven 
by  the  significant  fact  that  one  of  the  first  acts  of  the 
Peruvian  Government  of  General  Iglesias,  who  ne- 
gotiated and  signed  the  Treaty  with  Chile,  was  to  pro- 
claim the  law  of  March  31,  1884 — three  days  after  the 
ratifications  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  were  exchanged — 
to  create  the  department  of  Moquegua,  in  which  the 
province  of  Tarata  was  included,  "  whose  capital,  it 
stated,  shall  be  the  town  of  that  same  name  (since  then 
and  until  now  occupied  by  Chile)  and  shall  include  the 
districts  of  which  it  consists  at  present  with  their  same 
capitals;"  this  law  is  the  authentic  interpretation  of 
what  the  Treaty  of  Peace  prescribed  about  the  bound- 
ary line  of  the  River  Sama,  as  it  was  proclaimed  im- 
mediately after  the  perfecting  of  the  said  Treaty,  by 
one  of  the  parties  to  it,  and  without  the  least  attention 
thereto  on  the  part  of  the  Chilean  Government.  This 
law  having  been  abrogated  in  October  25,  1886,  to- 
gether with  all  the  internal  governmental  acts  of  the 
Government  of  General  Iglesias,  was  substituted  by 
that  of  October  12th  of  the  same  year,  which  kept  the 
same  interpretation  of  two  and  a  half  years  before, 
respecting  Tarata. 

And  before  I  proceed,  permit  me,  for  the  sake  of 
greater  clearness  in  this  exposition,  to  point  out  the 
difference  that  exists  between  the  definitions  given,  in 


522 

Peru  and  Chile,  to  the  circumscriptions  into  which  the 
respective  national  territories  are  divided.  The  Pe- 
ruvian territory  is  divided  into  departments,  these  into 
provinces,  and  these  in  turn  into  districts.  The  Chil- 
ean territory  is  divided  into  provinces,  these  into  de- 
partments, which  are  divided  in  turn  into  subdelega- 
tions;  therefore  a  Peruvian  department  is  equivalent 
to  a  Chilean  province;  and  a  Chilean  department  to  a 
Peruvian  province;  and  a  district  to  a  sub  delegation. 

The  Peruvian  department  of  Tacna  created  by 
law  of  June  16,  1875,  included  the  provinces  of 
Tacna,  Arica  and  Tarata.  The  first  was  composed  of 
the  districts  of  Tacna,  Pachia,  Cabana,  Sama,  Ilabaya, 
and  Locumba;  the  second,  of  those  of  Arica,  Codpa, 
Lluta,  Belen,  Socoroma,  and  Livircar;  and  the  third, 
of  Tarata,  Candarane,  Tiscaco,  Estique,  Curibaya,  and 
Tarucachi,  all  towns,  and  besides  the  settlements  of 
Quilahuani,  Huaytire,  Turunturo,  Maure,  Chaspaya, 
Sitajara,  Cano,  Palquilla,  Talabaya,  Toquela,  Huacano, 
Quilla ;  the  villages  of  Cairani,  Camilaca,  Pallatu,  Cala- 
cala,  Susapaya,  Chucatamani,  Tala  Yabroco,  Putina, 
Londaniza,  Pistala,  Corocroro,  Challaguaya,  Estique 
Pampa,  Huamara,  and  of  the  Totora  ranch,  with  a 
total  of  8,000  inhabitants  in  1883;  that  is  to  say,  the 
eastern  limits  of  the  province  of  Tarata  are  made  up 
of  the  Mauri  River  which  separates  it  from  the  Pe- 
ruvian department  of  Puno  and  from  Bolivia;  and  the 
southern  limits,  of  the  ravines  of  Caquilloco,  Chero, 
Quilla,  Palquilla,  to  the  town  of  Toquela,  which  is  at 
the  foot  of  the  Barroso,  following  the  Usuchuma 
River,  the  snow-capped  mountains  of  Quenuta,  Visi- 
viri,  Humapalca,  Cosapilla,  and  Mascano,  to  the  Bo- 
livian border. 

According  to  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace, 
Chile  must  occupy  only  the  territory  of  the  Peruvian 


523 

province  of  Arica  and  that  part  of  Tacna  to  the  south 
of  the  Sama  Eiver;  therefore,  she  did  not  have  any 
right  to  retain  any  part  of  the  province  of  Tarata,  all 
of  it  situated  to  the  north  of  that  river,  with  an  area 
of  4,979  square  kilometres,  and  that  was  not  mentioned 
even,  by  the  Treaty,  which  fixed  the  northern  limits  of 
the  territory  that  would  continue  to  be  occupied  in  the 
province  of  Tacna,  stating  that  it  was  the  Sama  River, 
from  its  source  in  the  mountains  limiting  with  Bolivia 
to  its  outlet  into  the  sea.     Thus  the  territories,  the 
occupation  of  which  by  Chile  for  a  period  of  ten  years 
was  consented  to  by  Peru,  were  set  out  doubly ;  by  the 
denominations  of  the  Peruvian  territorial  demarka- 
tion,  which  upon  expressly  including  the  provinces  of 
Tacna  and  Arica,  excluded  tacitly  but  undoubtedly,  the 
territories  of  the  province  of  Tarata,  which  was  not 
mentioned,  and  by  the  fixing  of  the  Sama  River  as  the 
provisional  border,  thus  excluding  implicitly  the  entire 
zone  that  extended  to  the  north  of  that  river,  from  its 
true  source  down  to  the  sea.    If,  then,  any  doubt  could 
be  possible,  and  honestly  it  could  not  be,  about  the 
course  of  the  Sama,  all  that  it  was  necessary  to  do  was 
to  appeal  to  the  prompt  resort  of  establishing  what  the 
territorial  comprisal  was,  according  to  the  Peruvian 
laws,  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  since  the 
denomination  with  which  they  were  designated  gave  to 
understand  clearly  that  it  referred  to  the  territory  that 
Peru  assigned  to  them,  because  in  the  Chilean  demar- 
kation  such  provinces  did  not  then  exist.    Peru,  upon 
her  part,  and  until  the  carrying  out  of  the  plebiscite 
which,  after  ten  years  of  Chilean  occupation,  should 
return  to  her  the  provinces  which  she  surrendered  pro- 
visionally, maintained,  by  law  of  October  12,  1886,  the 
Peruvian  department  of  Tacna,  composed  of  the  prov- 
ince of  Tarata  and  the  district  of  Locumba.    Tarata, 


524 

which  until  the  proclamation  of  Independence  had  been 
only  a  town,  was  made  into  a  district  by  decree  of  the 
Liberator  Bolivar;  having  been  raised  to  the  rank  of  a 
province  by  the  law  of  October  12,  1874,  which  raised 
to  the  rank  of  districts,  the  towns  of  Ticaco  and  Taru- 
cachi. .  The  law  of  February  5, 1875,  created  the  district 
of  Curibaya  also  for  the  province  of  Tarata,  subdivid- 
ing that  of  Candarave. 

When  in  1884  the  Peruvian  authorities  demanded 
the  fulfillment  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace,  in  the  part  that 
referred  to  the  integral  return  of  the  province  of 
Tarata,  the  Chilean  Commandant  Silva  Arriagada, 
whose  forces  occupied  it,  refused  to  do  so,  alleging 
that  in  view  of  the  information  acquired  by  the  politi- 
cal head  of  Tacna,  the  upper  part  of  the  Sama  River 
was  composed  of  the  Ticalaco  ravine  and  river,  thus 
taking  as  origin  of  the  Sama,  one  of  its  smallest  tribu- 
taries. This  arbitrary  act  of  the  Chilean  authorities 
meant  the  deforcement  of  the  districts  of  Tarata,  Taru- 
cachi  and  Estique  which  embrace  a  territorial  exten- 
sion of  637  square  kilometres,  with  nearly  4,000  in- 
habitants. 

The  geographic  error  in  which  the  Chilean  authori- 
ties incurred,  was  too  obvious  to  be  involuntary.  The 
Sama  River  starts  in  the  mountains  called  Barroso 
Grande  and  Barroso  Pequeno,  of  a  height  of  more  than 
20,000  feet,  situated  within  the  Peruvian  territory  of 
Tarata;  and  from  its  origin,  down  to  its  confluence 
with  the  Tarata  River,  it  is  known  as  the  Estique 
River.  From  there  down  to  its  outlet  into  the  sea  it 
takes  the  name  of  Sama,  the  name  of  the  valley  that 
it  crosses  and  enriches.  That  the  Estique  is  the  prin- 
cipal origin  of  the  Sama,  and  not  the  Ticalaco,  is 
proven  by  the  facts  that  the  origin  of  the  first  is  in  the 


525 

highest  peaks  of  the  Barroso ;  the  volume  of  its  waters 
— much  greater  than  that  of  the  Ticalaco;  the  course 
that  it  follows,  and  its  hydrographical  system.  The 
Ticalaco  arises  in  the  secondary  water-sheds  of  the 
foot-hills  of  the  Barroso,  at  the  foot  of  the  snow-capped 
mountains  of  Tarata. 

My  Government  could  not  become  reconciled  to  such 
an  arbitrary  interpretation  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace ;  and 
this  department,  directly  before  the  Chilean  Legation 
in  Lima,  as  well  as  through  the  Peruvian  Legation  in 
Santiago,  insistently  claimed  the  right  of  having  all 
the  territory  of  the  province  of  Tarata,  that  is  to  say, 
the  districts  of  Tarata,  Tarucachi,  and  Estique,  re- 
turned to  it,  meeting  always  with  the  tacit  delay,  of 
which  Chilean  diplomacy  is  so  fond,  that,  although  not 
denying  the  justice  and  the  clearness  of  the  rights 
claimed  by  Peru,  in  fact  did  not  give  to  it  the  satisfac- 
tion demanded. 

On  January  20,  1885,  the  Chilean  Government  issued 
a  decree  that  organized,  politically  and  administra- 
tively, the  subdelegation  of  Tarata,  as  an  intergral 
part  of  the  province  of  Tacna.  This  decree  fixed  the 
limits  of  the  subdelegation  farther  north  than  the 
River  Ticalaco,  at  the  River  Chasapaya,  known  also  as 
the  River  Cano  or  River  Salado,  thus  enlarging  upon 
the  plunder  committed  by  the  Chilean  authorities,  as 
the  River  Chasapaya,  Cano,  or  Salado  did  cover  not 
only  the  usurped  districts  of  Tarata,  Tarucachi  and 
Estique,  as  did  the  Ticalaco  River,  but  also  another 
district  of  the  Peruvian  province  of  Tarata,  that  of 
Ticaco,  with  one  town  and  three  villages  and  a  popu- 
lation of  over  2,000  inhabitants.  Before  such  an  alarm- 
ing attitude,  Peru  was  not  long  in  starting  a  negotia- 
tion, succeeding  in  having  the  justice  of  her  reclama- 
tion acknowledged,  at  least  in  part. 


526 

This  partial  success  did  not  cause  Peru  to  forget  the 
necessity  of  obtaining  complete  reparation  for  the  out- 
rage that  still  subsisted,  by  the  retention  of  the  three 
districts  of  Tarata  occupied  by  the  Chilean  authori- 
ties; and  during  the  time  between  1866  and  1890,  the 
Peruvian  Minister  at  Santiago,  obeying  the  instruc- 
tions of  this  Ministry,  insisted  consistently  in  his  ne- 
gotiations that  looked  to  the  restitution  of  those  dis- 
tricts. Being  thus  pressed,  the  Government  of  Chile 
could  not  ignore  the  reclamation;  to  save  the  difficulty, 
it  renewed  to  the  Peruvian  representative  the  proposal 
made  four  years  before  by  the  same  Chilean  Govern- 
ment, and  which  Peru  then  refused  because  of  the  diffi- 
culties that  there  would  be  in  the  appointment,  by  the 
two  interested  countries,  of  a  joint  commission  to 
make  the  topographic  studies  necessary  to  establish- 
ing the  true  course  of  the  Sama  River,  as  a  step  prior 
to  resolving  the  Peruvian  reclamation.  This  course 
already  was  perfectly  well  known  to  us,  through  the 
unanimous  reports  of  the  Peruvian  inhabitants  of  that 
region;  reports  that  soon  were  confirmed  by  the  tech- 
nical study  entrusted  by  the  Geographic  Society  of 
Lima  to  the  Colonel  of  Engineers,  Teobaldo  Elespuru, 
according  to  which  the  Sama  River  is  formed  by  three 
principal  rivers :  the  Chasapaya,  the  Ticalaco,  and  the 
Estique,  which  flow  through  a  very  broken,  mountain- 
ous region  where  eruptive  rocks  may  be  seen ;  and  be- 
yond the  high  peaks  toward  the  Desaguadero,  are  seen 
sandstones,  alternating  with  the  calcareous  rocks,  in 
almost  all  of  the  sedimentary  spots.  The  Chasapaya 
is  formed  in  its  origin  by  two  streamlets;  the  Taya- 
vera  (cold  water),  which  starts  near  Chutana;  and  the 
Untuavira  (hot  water),  which  springs  up  from  the  side 
of  the  volcano  Yucamani.  The  Ticalaco  starts  at  the 
Unalzu  ridges  and  receives  several  streams  of  water 


527 

which  originate  in  the  thaws  of  the  Mamaraya,  Li  bine, 
and  Chaquiro  mountains.  At  the  foot  of  the  Ticaco, 
the  Ticalaco  receives  another  affluent  called  the  Tarata 
Corchaviro  Eiver  which  starts  at  the  foot  of  the  snow- 
capped Caparaja.  The  Estique  has  its  origin  at  the 
foot  of  the  Barroso  mountain,  and  by  the  west  longi- 
tude of  its  origin  (69°  55'  30"),  it  is  the  one  that  is 
nearest  to  the  Bolivian  frontier.  The  Estique  is 
formed  of  two  principal  rivulets ;  the  one  that  springs 
directly  from  the  Barroso  and  passes  through  Taru- 
cachi;  and  the  one  that  originates  in  the  Iscahuaila 
ridge  and  passes  through  Talabai.  My  Government, 
which  knew  this  perfectly  since  long  ago,  and  which 
feared  to  further  the  policy  of  calculated  delay  that 
Chile  pursued  in  this  affair,  refused  to  concur  in  the 
formation  of  the  proposed  commission,  insinuating 
that  the  Government  of  Chile  should  obtain  alone  the 
information  which  it  lacked  to  resolve  the  just  Pe- 
ruvian reclamation.  This  insinuation  was  accepted  by 
the  Chilean  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations,  on  October 
23,  1890,  but  never  was  put  into  practice  for  the  spe- 
cious reasons  given  fifty  days  later. 

Internal  political  events,  first  in  Chile  and  then  in 
Peru,  forced  the  postponement  of  the  question  of 
Tarata. 

On  April  16,  1898,  the  Billinghurst-Latorre  Protocol 
was  signed  at  Santiago  by  the  Peruvian  Plenipoten- 
tiary and  the  Chilean  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations, 
to  determine  the  manner  of  carrying  out  the  plebiscite 
which,  according  to  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace 
of  October  20,  1883,  must  decide  the  definite  situation 
of  the  Peruvian  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica.  Ac- 
cording to  this  protocol,  the  three  districts  of  Tarata 
retained  by  Chile,  must  also  take  part  in  the  plebisci- 


528 

tary  voting;  but  Article  XIV  of  the  same  diplomatic 
act  states : 

-  ' '  The  fact  that  the  registering  and  the  receiving 
commissions  of  which  the  preceding  articles  spjeak, 
are  functioning  in  Tarata,  does  not  means  that 
Peru  desists  from  the  pending  reclamation  with 
respect  to  a  part  of  this  region,  although  this  does 
not  mean  that  no  indemnity  will  be  asked  for,  for 
the  time  that  Chile  has  occupied  it." 

The  President  of  Peru,  explaining  the  meaning  of 
this  clause,  stated  in  a  message  to  the  Peruvian  Con- 
gress : 

"The  plebiscite  which  shall  take  place  in  Tacna 
and  Arica  shall  also  include  Tarata;  and  being- 
favorable  to  us,  as  it  is  bound  to  be,  it  will  not 
leave  any  question  whatsoever  unsolved. 

"In  case,  simply  hypothetical,  that  the  plebiscite 
should  result  adverse  to  us,  the  pact  has  decidedly 
safeguarded  the  integrity  of  the  rights  that 
we  claim.  The  plebiscite  in  Tarata  will  not  have 
any  value,  therefore,  except  in  the  sole  case  of 
that  of  Tacna  and  Arica  being  favorable  to  us, 
and  yet  without  any  possibility  of  injuring  us  in 
the  contrary  case. 

"Any  other  procedure  would  have  prolonged 
the  Chilean  occupation  indefinitely,  to  the  sole 
damage  of  Peru,  or  would  have  left  the  interna- 
tional problem  unsolved. 

"If  the  pact  to  which  I  refer  is  worthy  of  a  spe- 
cial recommendation,  it  is  because  of  the  discreet 
manner  in  which  it  treats  the  question  of  Tarata, 
the  importance  of  which  has  led  me  to  occupy 
myself  with  it  now." 

.  This  protocol,  which  was  approved  by  the  Chilean 
Senate,  was  not  approved  by  the  Chamber  of  Deputies. 


529 

And,  demanding  its  approval,  the  Minister  of  Peru 
at  Santiago  stated  in  the  note  of  June  12,  1900,  re- 
ferring to  his  conference  of  May  3  with  the  Chilean 
Minister  of  Foreign  Relations : 

"I  recalled  also  that  upon  the  celebration  of  the 
Billinghurst-Latorre  agreement,  several  impor- 
tant negotiations  had  been  left  in  abeyance,  among 
others  that  relating  to  the  occupation  by  Chile  of 
a  part  of  the  province  of  Tarata,  always  esteemed 
as  illegal  by  Peru.  This  question  and  others  that- 
exist,  such  as  the  closing  of  the  schools  of  Tacna 
and  Arica  that  were  managed  by  Peruvian  teach- 
ers, would  be  solved  implicitly,  or  would  be  in  the 
way  of  being  solved  within  a  short  term,  upon  the 
definite  sanction  of  the  said  agreement.  If  this  is 
not  approved,  these  questions  will  have  to  enter 
again  into  a  new  period  of  activity  to  the  detri- 
ment of  the  harmony  that  should  rule  the  relations 
between  both  countries.' ' 

This  allegation  was  not  answered  explicitly  by  the 
Chilean  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations. 

The  same  Peruvian  representative,  when  referring 
to  the  non-approval  of  the  protocol,  stated  to  the 
Chilean  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations,  ratifying  his 
former  opinions,  in  the  note  of  January  19,  1901 : 

'  *  Your  Excellency  has  not  forgotten  certainly 
that,  before  all  this,  and  scarcely  had  the  Treaty 
of  Peace  between  our  respective  nations  been 
signed,  Peru  protested  before  Chile,  against  the 
illegal  approbation  by  the  latter  of  a  part  of  the 
province  of  Tarata.  Chile  did  not  oppose  any 
serious  arguments  to  this  reclamation.  She  of- 
fered, in  1890,  to  send  engineers  to  study  for  her 
own  enlightenment,  the  origin  and  the  course  of 
the  Sama  River;  and  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  ten 


530 

years  have  elapsed  since  the  date  of  that  offer,  the 
result  of  the  studies  effected  are  not  known,  nor 
the  manner  in  which  the  Peruvian  reclamations 
have  been  resolved.  In  the  Billinghurst-Latorre 
Protocol  a  solution  for  this  affair  had  been 
planned ;  but  as  that  agreement  has  been  put  aside, 
the  said  reclamations  became  effective  again  in 
their  entirety.  These  expressions,  as  the  former, 
did  not  receive  any  answer  from  the  Chilean  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Eelations.  For  that  reason,  one 
of  my  honorable  predecessors,  in  the  communica- 
tion which  he  addressed  on  May  26,  1901,  to  the 
Ministry  which  is  today  under  the  meritorious 
charge  of  Your  Excellency  stated : 

'  That  situation  (the  vexing  discussions  de- 
rived from  the  demands  of  the  foreign  creditors 
of  Peru,  and  the  opposition  of  Chile  to  acknowl- 
edging herself  responsible  for  the  payments  im- 
posed upon  her  by  the  Treaty  of  Peace)  favored 
the  purpose  of  ignoring  the  stipulations  of  the 
Treaty.  And  thus,  rmon  organizing  the  delega- 
tions and  subdelegations.  a  form  in  which,  ac- 
cording to  Chilean  law,  the  provinces  of  Tacna 
and  Arica  must  be  administered,  part  of  the 
province  of  Tarata.  adjoining  Tacna,  and  with 
it  the  towns  and  villages  situated  to  the  north 
of  the  Sama  River  was  incorDorated  to  the  ter- 
ritory submitted  to  the  temporary  occupation  of 
Chile,  the  Sama  Eiver  being  the  boundary 
pointed  by  Article  IIT.  And,  ui)on  exposing 
these  facts,  concluded  statin <r  that :  'Peru  under- 
stands that  she  ha*  the  ri<dit,  according  to  this 
article,  to  demand  the  restriction  to  her  of  the 
territory  corresponding  to  the  province  of  Ta- 
rata. >  " 

Then  the  most  odious  situation  that  has  existed  be- 
tween Peru  and  Chile  after  the  War  of  the  Pacific,  was 
created,  due  to  the  activity  called  Chileanization, 
which  had   as   its   purpose   the  bringing   out   of  the 


531 

disappearance  of  the  Peruvian  element  from  the  terri- 
tories that  Chile  snatched  from  Peru  through  the 
Treaty  of  Peace,  and  even  from  those  that  were  not 
mentioned  in  the  Treaty,  such  as  Tarata.  This  activ- 
ity consisted  of  the  putting  into  effect  by  the  Chilean 
Government  of  a  series  of  measures  of  a  most  irritating 
violence,  which  were  executed  brutally  by  its  authori- 
ties, and  which  included,  the  closing  of  the  Peruvian 
schools  and  churches;  the  prohibition  of  employing 
Peruvian  help  in  the  commerce  and  industries  of  Arica, 
Tacna  and  Tarapaca;  the  plunder  of  the  Peruvian  be- 
nevolent societies;  the  expulsion  of  Peruvian  priests; 
the  obligatory  enrollment  in  the  Chilean  army  of  Pe- 
ruvians who  proclaimed  their  nationality;  and  when 
these  and  other  similar  measures  did  not  give  the  de- 
sired results,  the  expatriation,  en  masse,  of  the  Peruv- 
ians and  their  families,  was  appealed  to,  unscrupu- 
lously, forcing  them  to  leave  suddenly,  and  without 
giving  them  time  to  take  with  them  those  household 
goods  indispensable  to  existence,  in  order  that  every- 
thing should  be  abandoned  to  the  pillage  of  the  Chilean 
hordes,  whose  ferocious  instincts  were  incited  by  the 
authorities  themselves  by  means  of  special  agents. 

It  was  in  these  circumstances  that  the  Chilean  Gov- 
ernment thought  to  serve  its  purposes  better  by  send- 
ing to  Tacna  as  the  chief  authority,  the  person  who  a 
few  years  before  had  failed  notoriously  as  diplomatic 
representative  in  Lima,  and  who  speculated  crying  out 
his  hatred  toward  Peru.  Among  the  many  initiatives 
of  this  functionary  of  unsound  mind  was  that  of  rais- 
ing the  subdelegation  of  Tarata  to  the  rank  of  depart- 
ment (equivalent  to  a  Peruvian  province),  "to  send, 
he  stated,  to  that  important  zone  an  intelligent  func- 
tionary who  may  accomplish  a  fruitful  work  in  favor 


532 

of  the  Chilean  interests."  And  in  support  of  this  ini- 
tiative, he  wrote  to  the  Chilean  Minister  of  Foreign 
Relations:  "You  know  how  this  subdelegation  (Ta- 
rata)  preoccupies  me.  There  the  Peruvians  have  the 
greater  part  of  their  electoral  forces,  there  we  also 
could  organize  them,  and  nevertheless  we  insist  in  leav- 
ing it  abandoned."  This  obfuscation  respecting  Ta- 
rata  had  led  the  Chilean  Government  to  issue  the  de- 
cree of  February  1,  1908,  subdividing  Tarata  into  six 
districts,  from  the  three  of  which  it  was  composed. 
The  old  districts  were  as  has  been  stated,  Tarata,  Taru- 
cachi,  and  Estique,  and  those  that  were  added  were 
Chucatamani,  Putlina,  and  Mauri;  this  last  was  not 
mentioned  in  the  decree;  but  the  boundaries  marked 
out  show  that  the  Mauri  region,  which  is  bounded  on 
the  south  by  the  Ancomara  ridge,  was  included,  a  re- 
gion to  which  Chile  never  had  any  right ;  and  realizing 
the  geographical  absurdity  of  marking  out  the  bound- 
ary line  which  the  Treaty  of  Peace  fixed  as  the  River 
Sama,  not  by  the  water  courses  which  might  be  con- 
sidered, with  or  without  reason,  the  origin  of  that 
river,  but  by  the  Ticaco  River,  its  affluent,  fixed  the 
boividary  upon  orographic  references  such  as  the 
Chasparra  and  Molleraco  hills,  thus  to  extend  the 
illegal  occupation  of  Chile  to  the  Mauri  River,  which 
starts  at  the  snow-capped  Cauchiri,  although  this  river 
and  the  Sama  belong  to  different  hydrographic  basins, 
and  between  them  lying  the  branch  of  the  high  moun- 
tains of  the  two  Barrosos. 

Something,  which  must  be  supposed  came  from  the 
moral  store  of  conscience,  made  fruitless  for  several 
months  the  personal  efforts  of  the  Intendant  of  Tacna 
to  secure  the  raising  of  Tarata  from  a  subdelegation 
to  a  department ;  but  the  visit  paid  by  the  President 


533 

of  Chile  in  April,  1909,  afforded  the  Intendant  the  op- 
portunity of  gaining  the  support  of  the  President  for 
his  project.  Withal,  the  Chilean  Government  feared 
the  scandal  of  asking  its  Congress  directly  to  promote 
Tarata  territorially;  and  it  availed  itself  therefore  of 
the  private  initiative  of  a  Deputy  of  the  Government 
party,  and  thus  the  objective  sought  was  reached,  as 
on  November  29,  1911,  the  law  which  created  the  de- 
partment of  Tarata  with  the  territory  of  the  eighth 
and  ninth  subdelegations,  that  is,  with  the  three  Pe- 
ruvian districts  of  Tarata,  Tarucachi,  and  Estique, 
was  promulgated. 

The  Peruvian  Government,  in  spite  of  the  situation 
created  by  the  withdrawal  of  the  Legations  of  Peru  and 
Chile,  from  Santiago  and  from  Lima,  respectively,  did 
not  fail  to  adopt  the  attitude  which  corresponded  to  it, 
protesting  with  energy  against  this  law,  even  before 
it  was  proclaimed;  this  gave  place  to  an  exchange  of 
notes  between  the  Ministers  of  Foreign  Relations  of 
the  two  countries ;  but  without  any  other  practical  re- 
sult than  the  making  evident  of  the  justice  that  as- 
sisted Peru,  and  of  the  decision  of  the  Chilean  Gov- 
ernment of  not  stopping  at  any  outrage  in  order  to 
procure  the  absorption  of  territories  that  were  and 
would  continue  to  be  Peruvian,  because,  among  other 
reasons,  Chile  is  a  small  and  poor  country,  and  with- 
out sufficient  force  of  assimilation  to  carry  out  an  en- 
terprise such  as  the  imposing  of  a  nationality  upon 
foreign  territories  and  people,  an  enterprise  in  which 
even  the  greatest  nations  have  failed. 

By  one  of  those  strange  contradictions  caused  by 
lack  of  international  morality,  the  Chilean  Govern- 
ment, that  alleged  as  the  chief  reason  for  altering  the 
legal  condition  of  the  usurped  territory  of  Tarata  in 


534 

raising  it  to  a  department,  "the  necessity  of  bettering 
all  the  administrative  services,  supplying  them  with 
superior  authorities  of  Government,  of  justice,  and  of 
public  security,"  today  abolishes  it,  as  though  it 
wished  to  announce  that  that  unfortunate  Peruvian 
territory,  which  it  retains  without  any  right,  now  shall 
not  have  good  administrative  services,  and  that  the 
subordinate  Chilean  authorities  which  might  better 
them,  shall  not  do  a  work  of  government,  of  justice,  or 
of  public  security.  Purposely  or  not,  this  strange  con- 
trast proclaims  the  reality  of  the  situation  created  for 
the  Peruvians  in  Tarata  as  well  as  for  those  in  the 
other  Peruvian  territories  retained  by  Chile  between 
the  Rivers  Sama  and  Loa.  Still,  in  1912,  Chilean 
forces  which  since  ten  years  ago  occupied  the  Coalliri 
station  upon  the  right  bank  of  the  Mauri  River,  occu- 
pied Conchachire,  which  was  profaned  by  making  it 
serve  as  a  lodging  place  for  the  Chilean  soldiers,  all 
the  demands  that  were  made  for  reparations  for  this 
unheard-of  outrage,  being  fruitless. 

Tarata,  a  town  before  1824,  a  district  after  that  date, 
a  province  in  1874,  pursues  an  ascending  career  within 
its  own  nation,  Peru,  that  ever  fondly  watched  over  its 
progress  and  development.  Usurped  by  Chile,  during 
thirty-seven  years,  it  is  converted  first  into  a  subdele- 
gation,  the  lowest  territorial  category;  and,  although 
according  to  the  Chilean  military  authority  in  1884, 
the  boundary  line  of  Ticalaco  which  maintained  Ta- 
rata, Tarucachi,  and  Estique  within  the  Chilean  occu- 
pation "was  provisional  and  subject  to  the  agreements 
which  may  be  made  later  by  the  respective  Govern- 
ments,' '  nevertheless,  Tarata  being  raised  by  circum- 
stantial needs  to  the  rank  of  a  Chilean  department,  it 
,is  today  degraded  and  effaced  from  the  territorial  de- 


535 

markation  of  Chile.  The  purpose  is  manifest.  Feeling 
that  the  hour  for  great  historical  reparations  in  the 
New  World  approaches  an  hour  that  already  has  ar- 
rived in  Europe,  an  attempt  is  made  to  cover  the  tracks 
of  a  clamorous  international  attempt,  the  offender 
wishing  to  escape  the  penal  sanction  by  hiding  the  fruit 
of  his  crime;  but  we  harbor  the  close  persuasion  that 
when  justice,  which  is  on  the  way,  arrives  to  carry  out 
its  work,  the  heroic  lands  of  Tarata,  which  were  at- 
tempted to  be  disguised  before  and  which  are  attempted 
to  be  hidden  now,  shall  cry  out  that  they  are  Peruvian, 
as  they  have  been  since  the  most  remote  times. 

In  the  meantime,  my  Government  hastens  to  inform 
that  of  Your  Excellency,  as  to  the  facts  of  the  so-called 
"Question  of  Tarata,"  and  to  protest  energetically 
against  the  procedure  followed  by  the  Chilean  Govern- 
ment with  respect  to  it,  convinced  that,  in  the  senti- 
ments of  justice  that  characterize  the  Government  of 
Your  Excellency,  mine  shall  find  in  this  emergency  a 
generous  reception. 

I  avail  myself  of  this  opportunity  of  expressing  to 
you,  Sir,  the  assurances  of  my  highest  and  most  dis- 
tinguished consideration. 

A.  Salomon. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  *  *  * 


536 


Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile  to  Minister  of 
Foreign  Relations  of  Peru. 


(Telegram.) 


[Translation.] 
Santiago,  December  12,  1921. 


Mr.  Minister: 

The  negotiations  carried  on  directly  between  our 
two  Governments  in  the  month  of  November,  1912,  for 
the  purpose  of  fixing  the  bases  which  should  govern 
the  plebiscite  whereby  the  definite  sovereignty  of  the 
territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica  is  to  be  determined, 
were  interrupted  in  the  last  stages  of  their  proceed- 
ings for  well  known  reasons  that  were  entirely  beyond 
our  control. 

Inasmuch  as  on  that  date  our  Governments  for  the 
first  time,  after  long  and  unfruitful  discussions,  came 
to  an  agreement  relative  to  the  additional  protocol 
mentioned  in  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon 
nothing  can  be  more  lamentable  than  that  the  causes 
above  mentioned  should  have  disturbed  the  agree- 
ment that  was  designed  to  end  all  the  differences 
still  existing  between  the  two  countries. 

His  Excellency,  the  President  of  the  Republic  of 
Chile,  who  has  the  firm  intention  of  seeking,  as  soon 
as  possible,  the  way  to  solve  the  Tacna  and  Arica 
problem,  has  instructed  me  to  address  the  Government 
of  Your  Excellency  for  the  purpose  of  reaching,  the 
sooner  the  better,  a  solution  of  pending  difficulties. 

No  way  more  equitable  for  obtaining  the  just  and 
complete  fulfillment  of  the  Treaty  of  1883  can  be 
found  than  in  the  negotiations  of  1912,  referred  to  at 
the  beginning  of  this  note  because  as  Your  Excellency 
undoubtedly  knows,  it  would  entirely  satisfy  the  hopes 
of  the  Government  of  Peru  since  that  Government  was 


537 

anxious  to  find  a  formula  which  would  give  Chile  no 
credit  for  exercising  that  initiative.  For  this  reason, 
the  same  hour  and  the  same  day  of  the  month  of  Nov- 
ember, 1912,  the  Ministers  of  Foreign  Relations  of 
both  countries  exchanged  identical  telegraphic  com- 
munications inviting  each  other  to  renew  cordial  and 
permanent  relations,  in  order  to  insure  national  pros- 
perity and  to  satisfy  the  best  American  interests. 

In  these  telegraphic  dispatches,  immediately  rati- 
fied in  the  same  way  [telegraphically]  it  was  estab- 
lished that  the  plebiscite,  referred  to  in  the  Treaty 
of  Ancon  to  determine  the  definite  sovereignty  of 
Tacna  and  Arica,  should  be  carried  out  upon  the  fol- 
lowing bases: 

1st.  The  plebiscite  shall  be  held  under  the  direction 
of  a  Committee  that  shall  make  decisions  by  majority 
vote  and  that  said  Committee  shall  be  composed  of  five 
delegates,  namely:  two  Chileans  appointed  by  Chile, 
two  Peruvians  appointed  by  Peru,  and  the  President 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Chile,  who  shall  preside. 

2d.  Those  born  in  Tacna  and  Arica  and  the  Chileans 
and  the  Peruvians  having  a  residence  of  three  years 
in  the  territory  shall  have  the  right  to  vote. 

3d.  All  the  voters  must  be  able  to  read  and  write. 

With  these  simple  formulas,  immediately  ratified  by 
cable  as  has  been  said,  and  as  especially  stipulated, 
the  sole  difficulties  that  had  impeded  the  definite  ful- 
fillment of  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  were  re- 
moved. With  this  agreement  formulated  in  such  cor- 
dial and  perfect  terms,  there  was  no  reason  for  post- 
poning the  fulfillment  or  dropping  the  negotiations. 

It  is  true  that  by  that  agreement,  the  fulfillment  of 
the  plebiscite  would  have  been  postponed  until  the  year 
1933;  and  that  such  a  postponement  would  have  kept 
alive  in  America  the  possibility  of  international  con- 


538     . 

flict.  Peru  and  Chile,  and  perhaps  other  countries 
would  thus  have  been  forced  to  expend  excessive 
amounts  for  military  preparation,  at  this  time  when 
the  Great  War  has  taught  the  nations  of  this  continent 
to  apply  their  best  efforts  toward  the  conservation  and 
development  of  their  natural  resources. 

The  fact  of  our  country  exercising  sovereignty 
over  Tacna  and  Arica,  as  expressly  stated  in  the  Treaty 
of  Ancon,  makes  the  postponement  of  the  plebiscite 
advantageous  because  of  a  possible  natural  increase  of 
its  interests  during  the  course  of  years ;  but  Chile,  be- 
cause of  a  high  spirit  of  continental  cordiality,  is  ready 
to  accept  an  earlier  date  than  that  specified  in  the 
agreement  of  1912  for  the  fulfillment  of  the  plebiscite. 

Inspired  by  these  purposes,  my  Government  invites 
Your  Excellency's  Government,  without  loss  of  time, 
to  carry  out  the  agreement  reached  in  November  of  1912 
in  order  to  verify  in  Tacna  and  Arica  the  plebiscite 
provided  for  in  Clause  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon. 

I  confidently  trust  that  Your  Excellency's  Govern- 
ment will  not  refuse  to  accept  this  invitation  since  it 
is  founded  upon  the  bases  set  forth  by  the  Govern- 
ment of  Peru  and  inspired  by  the  same  principles — 
although  it  is  not  so  advantageous  for  the  country  ex- 
ercising the  sovereignty — established  for  the  plebisci- 
tary acts  contemplated  in  the  Treaty  of  Versailles, 
which  the  Government  of  Your  Excellency  has  ap- 
proved and  signed. 

In  formulating  this  invitation,  in  a  high  spirit  of  in- 
ternational harmony,  I  may  assure  Your  Excellency 
that  my  Government  will  gladly  consider  any  sug- 
gestion of  Your  Excellency's  Government  which  will 
tend  to  give  to  this  act  the  greatest  solemnity,  guar- 
anteeing in  a  most  positive  manner  the  free  exercise 
of  the  will  of  those  called  upon  to  decide  the  future 
of  this  territory. 


539 

I  avail  myself  of  this  opportunity  to  express  to  Your 
Excellency  the  assurances  of  my  highest  and  most  dis- 
tinguished consideration. 

Ernesto  Barros. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  to  Minister  of 
Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 

[Translation.] 
(Telegram.) 

Lima,  December  17,  1921. 
Mr.  Minister: 

I  have  the  honor  to  reply  to  the  telegraphic  com- 
munication of  Your  Excellency,  which  was  received 
with  surprise  on  the  12th  instant,  and  which  has  for 
its  purpose  the  inviting  of  my  Government  to  carry 
out  what  is  termed  telegraphic  agreements  of  the 
month  of  November,  1912,  between  this  Ministry  and 
that  of  Your  Excellency. 

Diplomatic  relations  between  Peru  and  Chile  having 
been  broken  off  since  1910,  and  this  interruption  hav- 
ing been  intensified  by  the  withdrawal  of  the  consular 
agents  in  1918,  as  a  consequence  of  the  violent  persei 
cution  and  the  mass  expulsion  of  the  Peruvian  resit 
dents  in  the  territories  of  Tacna,  Arica  and  Tarj- 
apaca,  which  in  itself  would  be  sufficient  to  make  the 
plebiscite  impossible,  there  would  have  been  excellent 
reason  for  hoping  that,  because  of  the  diplomatic  pro- 
cedure to  which  all  the  countries  are  subject,  you 
would  have  sought,  first  of  all,  the  means  of  resuming 
the  interrupted    relations  in  order  to  be  able  to  im- 


540 

mediately  enter  into  amicable  discussion  of  the  political 
question  which,  whatever  might  be  the  solution 
reached,  could  not  be  resolved  by  the  means  of  ir- 
regular proceedings. 

It  is  surprising  that  Your  Excellency  attributes 
executive  power  to  a  mere  exchange  of  ideas  by  tele- 
graph, which  in  order  to  be  vested  with  the  character 
of  an  international  pact  must  pass  through  certain  de- 
finite and  necessary  steps,  and  above  all,  to  receive 
the  legislative  sanction  of  the  two  countries.  Your 
Excellency  well  knows  that  your  own  Government 
dropped  these  preliminary  negotiations,  as  shown  by 
the  documents  published  in  the  Memoria  of  the 
Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile  covering 
the  period  between  October,  1911,  and  July,  1914, 
pages  288  to  293;  and  it  is  furthermore  proven 
by  the  fact  that  not  even  the  appointments  of 
ministers  in  Lima  and  Santiago  referred  to  in 
those  telegrams  were  made.  Therefore,  it  is  very 
strange  that  Your  Excellency  invokes  the  ideas 
set  forth  in  the  course  of  a  negotiation  which 
was  a  failure,  to  think  of  it  as  the  first  agreement  of 
our  Governments,  and  to  attempt  to  utilize  those  ideas 
now  as  a  reasonable  basis  for  the  carrying  out  of  the 
plebiscite.  It  is  also  strange  that  the  rules  drawn  for 
the  holding  of  the  plebiscite  fourteen  years  before  in 
the  Protocol  of  April  16,  1898,  approved  by  the  Con- 
gress of  Peru  and  the  Senate  of  Chile  were  overlooked, 
although  the  acceptance  of  the  carrying  out  of  this 
same  Protocol  would  at  present  be  impossible  for  my 
Government  because  Your  Excellency's  Government 
has  violated  the  greater  part  of  the  articles  of  the 
Treaty  of  Peace  and  Friendship  of  October  20,  1883, 
from  which  the  above  mentioned  Protocol  should  em- 
anate. 


541 

I  also  believe  indefensible  Your  Excellency's  asser- 
tion that  the  so-called  bases  of  1912  are  inspired  by 
the  same  principles  as  those  established  for  the  plebi- 
scite contemplated  in  the  Treaty  of  Versailles,  which 
Peru  has  signed.  To  prove  this,  it  is  sufficient  to  call 
attention  to  the  fact  that  in  those  plebiscitary  acts 
that  which  has  been  primarily  guaranteed  is  the  free- 
dom of  the  vote  in  three  ways,  namely:  the  power  pre* 
siding  over  the  voting,  the  polling  of  the  vote,  and 
the  counting  thereof.  In  the  meantime,  and  even 
after  having  accomplished  the  mass  expulsion  of  the 
Peruvian  population  and  after  pretending  that  the 
plebiscite  would  be  carried  out  under  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  holder  of  the  provinces,  directly  interested  in  the 
result,  the  Chilean  authorities  of  Tacna,  Arica  and 
Tarata  have  dedicated  themselves,  since  a  month  ago, 
by  order  from  the  Government,  to  making  the  inhabi- 
tants of  those  provinces,  regardless  of  their  national- 
ity, sign  printed  statements  containing  the  promise 
to  vote  in  favor  of  Chile  for  the  definitive  annexation 
of  the  above  mentioned  territories. 

Notwithstanding'  the  foregoing,  and  regardless  of 
the  unjustified  affronts  of  Chile  to  Peru  in  the  last  27 
years,  my  Government  in  the  interest  of  American 
cordiality  curbs  the  impetus  of  its  natural  resentment 
although  still  firm  in  the  belief  that  a  plebiscite  un- 
der the  auspices  of  Chile,  after  the  years  elapsed,  in- 
stead of  eradicating  the  existing  differences,  would 
only  serve  to  intensify  them. 

The  desire  of  Peru  is  and  has  been,  to  prevent  any 
new  reasons  arising  for  broadening  the  distance  be- 
tween and  the  enmity  against  Chile,  and  to  this  end  it 
has  striven  for  and  will  insist  on  the  continued  seek- 
ing for  a  fair  solution  of  the  problem  of  the  Southern 
Pacific,  by  means  of  an  honest  and  unbiased  arbitra- 


542 

tion.  It  is  but  recently  that  the  Chilean  Government, 
at  Geneva,  through  its  representatives,  refused  to  rec- 
ognize the  jurisdiction  of  the  League  of  Nations  over 
the  existing  differences  between  Chile  and  Bolivia,  bas- 
ing its  argument  upon  the  fact  that  they  were  Ameri- 
can political  problems.  In  harmony  with  this  idea 
which  consequently  involved  the  seeking  of  a  corres- 
ponding solution  within  our  own  continent,  my  Govern- 
ment, in  accordance  with  the  traditions  of  its  invariable 
international  policy  in  favor  of  arbitration,  invites  that 
of  Your  Excellency  to  submit  jointly  the  entire  question 
of  the  South-Pacific  which  divides  us,  to  an  arbitra- 
tion, agreed  to  through  the  initiative  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  of  America,  a  procedure 
which  I  am  sure  will  bring  a  satisfactory  solution  of 
this  question  which  has  so  endangered  the  peace  of  the 
continent,  and  thus  put  an  end  to  the  entire  contro- 
versy in  accordance  with  the  new  views  on  peace  and 
on  justice  which  rule  the  world. 

On  submitting  this  proposal  to  the  high  considera- 
tion of  Your  Excellency  I  offer  to  your  Excellency 
my  highest  and  most  distinguished  consideration. 

Alberto  Salomon. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile  to  Minister  of 
Foreign  Relations  of  Peru. 


(Telegram.) 


[Translation.] 

Santiago,  December  20,  1921, 


Mr.  Minister: 

In  answering  your  telegraphic  note  of  the  17th  in- 
stant, in  which  Your  Excellency  has  replied  to  the  invi- 


543 

tation  which  I  had  the  honor  to  address  to  you  for  the 
purpose  of  carrying  out  the  plebiscite  duly  recorded  in 
the  third  Clause  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  from  which 
comes  the  expectation  of  Peru  for  the  recovery  of  the 
sovereignty  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  let  me  first  justify 
the  chosen  method  of  procedure,  that  is,  addressing 
myself  directly  to  Your  Excellency,  notwithstanding 
the  fact  that  the  diplomatic  relations  between  the  two 
countries  are  broken  off. 

My  Government,  Mr.  Minister,  considers  necessary 
and  adequate  all  the  proper  means  for  seeking  the  so- 
lution of  the  difficulties  which  exist  with  Peru ;  for  this 
reason  I  am  unable  to  understand  why  these  chosen 
proceedings  should  be  a  surprise  to  Your  Excellency, 
since  I  can  not  but  attribute  to  the  Government  of 
Peru  the  same  generous  and  open  state  of  mind  as  that 
which  has  inspired  the  Government  of  Chile  in  the  so- 
lution of  the  pending  difficulties;  a  state  of  mind  be- 
fore which  a  simple  protocol  formality  would  stand  as 
naught  and  which  has  not  even  the  merit  of  originality 
since  it  can  be  found  many  times  in  the  communica- 
tions which  the  Government  of  Your  Excellency  has 
addressed  directly  to  the  Chilean  Government,  not- 
withstanding the  breaking  off  of  diplomatic  relations. 

Your  Excellency  asserts  that  the  proper  method 
would  have  been  to  seek,  first  of  all,  a  means  of  re- 
establishing the  interrupted  relations;  but,  undoubt- 
edly, Your  Excellency  forgets  that  for  that  purpose  in 
the  year  1920  the  Chilean  Government  sent  to  Lima 
an  ex-Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  who  did  not  have 
the  good  fortune  to  be  received  by  His  Excellency 
Seiior  Leguia. 

Your  Excellency  states  that  the  negotiations  which 
the  Government  of  Chile  has  chosen  as  a  bases  for  for- 
mulating an  invitation  to  the  Peruvian  Government  to 


544 

carry  out  the  plebiscite  set  forth  in  Clause  III  of  the 
Treaty  of  1883,  was  a  mere  telegraphic  exchange  of 
ideas  which  never  had  the  character  of  ' '  agreements ' ' 
given  them  by  me. 

Nevertheless  the  last  White  Book  published  by  the 
Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Peru  concerning  the 
Tacna  and  Arica  problem,  refers  to  this  negotiation 
in  the  same  terms  as  I,  repeatedly  calling  it,  on  Page 
XL VIII  "covenant"  or  "agreement  celebrated,"  these 
expressions  being  concordant  with  what  is  stated  in 
the  Memoria  of  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of 
Chile,  which  was  erroneously  quoted  by  Your  Excel- 
lency. 

However,  invited  by  the  undersigned,  as  was  Your 
Excellency,  to  suggest  the  changes  you  deemed  proper 
to  the  bases  proposed,  my  Government  deplores  that 
Your  Excellency,  in  your  communication,  has  not  taken 
advantage  of  the  opportunity  for  setting  forth  the 
points  of  view  of  Peru  regarding  the  plebiscite,  points 
of  view  which  within  the  proper  limits,  we  should  have 
been  glad  to  take  into  consideration. 

Your  Excellency,  however,  referred  to  the  mass  ex- 
pulsion of  the  Peruvians  from  Tacna  and  Arica  and 
to  the  impossibility  of  the  carrying  out  of  the  plebi- 
scite, due  to  this  fact. 

If  the  expulsions  decreed  by  the  Government  of 
Chile  are  not  those  requested  by  Your  Excellency,  be- 
cause of  a  fear  of  revolutionary  agitators,  I  do  not 
know  which  ones  are  meant  by  the  references  in  your 
communication  but,  in  any  event,  I  am  pleased  to  offer 
to  the  Government  of  Your  Excellency  the  guarantee 
which  may  be  requested  for  the  return  of  the  Peruvian 
citizens  meeting  the  voting  requirements  and  who 
prove  that  they  have  left  Tacna  and  Arica  because  of 
violence. 


545 

Your  Excellency  has  thought  opportune  to  set  forth 
strange  statements,  for  which  no  proof  is  given,  or 
could  be  given,  to  the  effect  that  Chile  has  violated  al- 
most all  the  clauses  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  and  Friend- 
ship of  1883. 

I  shall  not  exert  myself  to  call  Your  Excellency's  at- 
tention to  the  fact  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  Chile 
to  commit  such  a  violation,  since  the  clauses  referred 
to  establish  obligations  not  imposed  on  Chile  in  favor 
of  Peru,  but  exactly  the  reverse. 

However,  permit  me  to  avail  myself  of  this  oppor- 
tunity to  state  that  the  only  provisions  of  the  Treaty 
of  Ancon  which  have  not  yet  been  fully  complied  with 
are  the  often  mentioned  Article  III  and  Article  XII, 
the  latter  prescribing  the  payment  of  certain  indemni- 
ties by  the  Government  of  Your  Excellency,  for  the 
indemnification  of  certain  Chilean  citizens.  Your  Ex- 
cellency well  knows  that  the  Chilean  Government  can 
not  in  any  way  be  made  responsible  for  the  non-fulfill- 
ment of  these  two  provisions. 

In  addition  to  other  statements  made  by  Your  Ex- 
cellency, my  examination  and  complete  refutation  of 
which  yould  take  us  far  from  the  useful  and  friendly 
consummation  sought  by  my  Government,  Your  Ex- 
cellency formulates  an  invitation  to  "submit  jointly 
the  entire  question  of  the  South  Pacific  which  divides 
us,  to  an  arbitration  agreed  to  through  the  initiative 
of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  of  America. '  ' 

The  only  question  which  divides  us,  and  to  which, 
undoubtedly,  Your  Excellency  has  wished  to  refer,  is 
the  difference  of  understanding  existing  with  regard 
to  the  manner  of  carrying  out  the  third  Clause  of  the 
Treaty  of  1883. 

Your  Excellency,  in  the  communication  to  which  I 
herein  make  reply,  does  not  even  set  forth  the  extent 


546 

of  the  rights  due  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  Your  Excellency  in  as  far  as  they  emanate 
from  the  Treaty,  and  thus  makes  it  necessary  that  be- 
fore agreeing  to  an  arbitration,  which  Chile  does  not 
refuse,  the  exact  points  of  the  question  should  be  fixed 
— on  which  I  flatter  myself  it  will  be  possible  to  find 
the  necessary  formula  with  Your  Excellency — and  to 
know  exactly  what  the  differences  of  the  plebiscite  for- 
malities may  be  which  would  force  us  to  ask  the  opinion 
of  another  country  so  that  perfect  accord  might  be 
reached. 

With  this  understanding  I  invite  your  Government, 
in  the  name  of  the  Government  of  Chile,  to  continue 
direct  negotiations  in  the  manner  which  Your  Excel- 
lency judges  proper  to  the  end  of  procuring  in  a  broad 
spirit  of  concord  the  harmonious  solution  which  would 
be  compatible  with  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  a  treaty  from 
whose  terms  it  is  unlawful  for  the  signatory  Govern- 
ments to  depart,  as  much  because  of  the  respect  that  is 
due  to  covenants  between  nations  as  because  it  is  not 
possible  to  change  historic  facts,  essential  and  funda- 
mental to  international  entities. 

I  feel  assured  that  Your  Excellency,  seeing  in  this 
communication  the  noble  spirit  of  cordiality  of  the 
Government  of  Chile,  will  be  willing  to  accept  the  invi- 
tation herein  and  will  do  all  that  is  possible  for  the 
mutual  welfare  of  our  two  nations  and  of  all  America, 
the  advent  of  an  era  of  peace,  of  harmony  and  of  co- 
operation that  circumstances  make  ever  more  press- 
ing. 

I  reiterate  to  Your  Excellency  the  assurance  of  my 
highest  and  most  distinguished  consideration. 

Ernesto  Barros. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru. 


547 

Circular  of  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile  to 
Legations  of  Chile  Abroad. 

[Translation.] 

Santiago,  December  20,  1921. 
Mk.  Ministek: 

Eeasons  of  an  administrative  nature,  advised  the 
dictation  of  Law  Number  3802,  promulgated  on  Sep- 
tember 22d  of  the  present  year,  which  abolishes  the 
department  of  Tarata,  created  by  Law  Number  2575 
of  December  2,  1911. 

By  reason  of  this,  the  Government  of  Peru  ad- 
dressed, on  September  20,  1921,  a  circular  note  to  the 
foreign  Chancelleries  placing  in  their  knowledge  the 
so-called  "Question  of  Tarata"  and  "its  protest 
against  the  procedure  followed  by  the  Chilean  Gov- 
ernment with  respect  to  it."  Upon  reading  the  said 
document,  which  is  lengthy,  diffuse,  and  written  in  a 
violent  language,  it  is  deduced  that  Peru  avails  itself 
of  the  occasion  of  a  law  having  been  dictated  to  reor- 
ganize the  province  of  Tacna,  to  insist  upon,  not  only 
the  returning  to  her  of  the  territory  to  the  south  of 
the  boundary  line  established  by  the  Treaty  of  Peace 
of  1883  whose  chief  center  is  the  town  of  Tarata,  but 
also  of  all  the  territories  that  were  ceded  "perpetually 
and  unconditionally"  as  a  consequence  of  the  War  of 
the  Pacific. 

This  circumstance  does  not  permit  giving  to  the 
Peruvian  note  a  greater  importance  than  that  of  a 
document  of  propaganda,  written  perhaps  simply  to 
maintain  in  activity  the  passions  within  the  country, 
which  is  convulsed  by  the  dictatorial  regime  implanted 
by  President  August o  B.  Leguia,  because  it  is  difficult 
to  conceive  that  enlightened  Governments,  friends  of 


548 

peace  and  of  order,  conscious  of  the  true  interests  of 
their  people,  should  pretend  to  do  away  with  a  Treaty 
that  signifies  sacrifices  that  no  one  can  forget,  and 
that  no  one  can  permit  to  be  forgotten. 

Desirous,  nevertheless,  of  safeguarding  the  good 
name  of  my  country,  its  foreign  policies,  and  its  acts, 
I  believe  it  to  be  necessary  to  provide  Your  Excel- 
lency with  some  facts  respecting  the  question  pro- 
moted by  the  Peruvian  note. 

The  Chilean  Military  Occupation 

After  the  taking  of  Tacna,  in  1880,  the  Chilean  mili- 
tary authorities  often  were  forced  to  send  expeditions 
into  the  interior,  to  attack  and  to  destroy  the  irregular 
forces  that  the  Peruvian  guerrillas  formed  in  the 
mountains  for  the  purpose  of  capturing  the  city. 

Several  encounters  took  place  during  this  time,  in 
one  of  which  the  Peruvian  Colonel  Albarracin,  one  of 
the  chieftains  who  maintained  the  province  in  uneasi- 
ness, was  slain. 

Of  all  these  expeditions,  the  most  important  per- 
haps was  that  which  Major  Subercaseaux  carried  out 
in  1884.  He  followed  the  road  from  Pachia  to  Palca, 
in  pursuit  of  the  guerrilla  Pacheco  Cespedes,  then  con- 
tinued along  the  western  slopes  of  the  Barroso  moun- 
tain, "taking  definite  possession  (states  an  official  doc- 
ument), of  all  the  sources  of  the  Sama,  to  Candarave." 
Therefore,  the  towns  of  Talabaya,  Estique,  Tarucache, 
Tarata,  Ticaco,  Chayahuaya,  Yabroco,  Susapaya,  and 
Chasapaya  were  occupied.  Referring  to  the  Chilean 
military  occupation,  the  Intendant  of  Tacna  states,  in 
a  memorandum  dated  November  5,  1897,  as  follows ; 

"It  was  then,  in  1883-4,  that  the  military  head 
of  Tarata,  Commandant  Ricardo  Silva  Arriagada, 


549 

fixed  the  general  boundaries  of  the  province  of 
Tacna  on  the  north,  occupying  Ticalaco,  Sitapara, 
and  Yatoraco,  and  designating,  as  boundary  line, 
the  course  of  the  Chasapaya,  or  Salado  River, 
from  its  source  in  the  Mountains  of  Yabroco,  the 
'  nearest  to  the  Peruvian-Bolivian  frontier.  These 
indications  served  to  fix  definitely  the  limits  of  the 
province  of  Tacna  in  the  form  expressed  by  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon." 

The  military  expeditions,  as  is  easy  to  understand, 
were  not  designed  to  occupy  mountain  territories  of 
scant  industrial  value,  thus  diverting  forces,  and  in- 
curring useless  expenses;  therefore,  after  punishing 
the  enemy  and  returning  to  the  towns  their  tranquility, 
the  garrisons  were  withdrawn  to  points  nearer  to  the 
capital  of  the  province.  In  this  manner,  the  towns 
mentioned  were  left  without  garrisons,  excepting  Ta- 
rata  where  a  subdelegate  was  established  perma- 
nently. 

The  Peruvian  authorities  availed  themselves  of  this 
circumstance  to  exercise  jurisdiction  over  the  aban- 
doned towns,  establishing  finally  their  most  advanced 
post  at  Ticaco,  on  the  north  bank  of  the  Ticalaco,  a 
short  distance  from  Tarata. 

•The  Chilean  authorities,  nevertheless,  always  con- 
sidered the  Salado  or  Chasapaya  River  to  be  the 
boundary  line  with  Peru. 

The  Northern  Boundary  According  to  the  Treaty  of 

Ancon. 

Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  with  Peru  estab- 
lishes the  condition  in  which  the  territory  of  Tacna 
remained  occupied  by  Chile  and  incidentally  fixes  the 
boundary  line  between  the  two  countries.    It  states : 


550 

4 'The  territory  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and 
Arica,  which  are  bounded  on  the  north' by  the 
Santa  River,  from  its  source  in  the  mountains 
limiting  with  Bolivia,  down  to  its  outlet  into  the 
sea;  on  the  south,  by  the  ravine  and  Eiver  Cama- 
rones;  on  the  east,  by  the  Republic  of  Bolivia; 
and  on  the  west,  by  the  Pacific  Ocean,  shall  con- 
tinue being  possessed  by  Chile,  and  subjected  to 
the  Chilean  legislation  and  authorities,  etc." 

This  definition  of  the  limits  of  the  territory  that  re- 
mained under  Chilean  jurisdiction  was  interpreted 
from  the  first  moment  in  the  sense  that  it  included,  on 
the  north,  the  entire  territorial  extension  south  of  the 
Sama  and  its  tributaries. 

The  negotiators  of  the  Treaty  undoubtedly  thought 
of  the  convenience  of  fixing  a  conspicuous  boundary 
line  such  as  the  Sama,  the  most  important  river  of  the 
region,  expressly  indicating  that  its  sources  must  be 
found  in  the  ranges  of  the  Bolivian  mountains. 

In  other  words,  the  attempt  was  made  to  establish 
a  geographical  unanimity  which  would  prevent  later 
conflicts  of  authorities. 

The  Peruvians  pretend  that  the  administrative  de- 
markation  that  they  had  of  the  territory  must  prevail, 
which  is  not  acceptable  as  it  was  always  arbitrary  and 
changeable,  and  did  not  correspond  to  an  international 
resolution. 

This  principle  being  established,  it  will  be  easy  to 
prove  that  the  Chilean  authorities  always  adjusted 
themselves  to  it,  dictating  laws  of  administrative  or- 
ganization, and  putting  into  effect  municipal  disposi- 
tions for  the  collection  of  taxes  in  all  the  places  where 
they  had  representatives. 


551 

The  Sama  River  and  Its  Tributaries. 

According  to  the  document  cited  by  the  Peruvian 
note  of  September  20th,  prepared  by  the  engineer  Ele- 
spuru,  T 

• 

"the  Sama  River  is  formed  of  three  chief  rivers: 
the  Chasapaya,  the  Ticalaco,  and  the  Estique, 
which  flow  through  a  very  broken  mountainous 
region  where  eruptive  rocks  are  seen     *     *     *" 

"The  Chasapaya,  at  its  source,  is  formed  of 
two  rivulets;  the  Tayavira  (cold  water),  which 
starts  near  Chutana;  and  the  Untuavira  (hot 
water),  which  springs  from  the  side  of  the  Yuca- 
mani  volcano. 

c  i  The  Ticalaco  starts  on  the  slope  of  the  Unalzu 
ridge  and  receives  several  streams  of  water  which 
originate  in  the  thaws  of  the  snow-capped  Mara- 
maya,  Libine,  and  Chaquiro.  At  the  foot  of 
Ticaco  it  receives  another  tributary  called  River 
Tarata  or  Chaviro  and  which  has  its  source  at  the 
.    foot  of  the  snow-capped  Caparaja. 

"The  Estique  has  its  source  at  the  foot  of  the 
Barroso  mountain,  and  because  of  the  west  longi- 
tude of  its  origin  (69°  55'  30")  it  is  the  nearest  to 
the  Bolivian  frontier.  The  Estique  is  composed 
of  two  chief  rivulets ;  the  one  that  springs  directly 
from  the  Barroso  and  passes  through  Tarucachi, 
and  the  one  that  comes  from  the  Iztahualla  ridge 
and  passes  through  Talabay." 

If  any  of  the  tributaries  is  taken  from  the  demarka- 
tion  of  the  boundary  line,  it  is  easily  proved  that  the 
definition  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  would  be,  from  this 
point  of  view,  inexact  and  incomplete.  In  fact,  if  the 
map  is  examined,  it  is  seen  that  the  source  of  these 
tributaries  is  very  far,  from  50  to  70  kilometres,  from 


552 

the  Bolivian  border  and,  therefore,  to  give  a  rational 
interpretation  to  the  Treaty,  it  must  be  understood 
that  the  frontier  includes  all  the  sources  of  the  Sama 
and  that  it  runs  along  the  peaks  that  separate  the  re- 
gions of  Tacna  and  Puno  from  Bolivia. 

This  is  the  boundary  pointed  out  by  all  the  legislative 
and  administrative  acts  of  the  Chilean  Government, 
since  1884  and  up  to  the  present  time. 

Creation  of  the  Province  of  Tacna, 

Of  the  territories  placed  under  the  sovereignty  of 
Chile  in  the  conditions  established  by  Article  III  of 
the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  the  province  of  Tacna  was 
formed,  a  province  being  the  most  extensive  political 
circumscription  within  the  Chilean  administrative 
system. 

In  fact,  the  Treaty  with  Peru  scarcely  being  pro- 
claimed, on  May  21,  1884,  the  Chilean  Government 
hastened  to  organize  the  public  services,  and  to  nor- 
malize the  condition  of  those  territories  that  had  been 
subjected  to  the  military  authorities  within  a  pro- 
visional system. 

Therefore,  the  law  of  October  31,  1884,  was  dictated, 
Article  I  of  which  disposed  that  the  territories  of 
Tacna  and  Arica  should  be  considered  as  one  province 
of  the  Republic,  with  the  name  of  Tacna,  and  that  the 
limits  of  which  should  be  those  pointed  out  by  the 
Treaty  of  Peace. 

Article  II  established  that  Chilean  law  would  rule  the 
new. province,  and  that  its  inhabitants  would  enjoy  the 
same  guarantees  which  the  Constitution  grants  to  the 
inhabitants  of  the  rest  of  the  Republic. 

Article  III  divided  the  province  into  two  depart- 
ments, called  Tacna  and  Arica. 


553 

The  following  article  fixed  the  limits  of  the  depart- 
ment of  Tacna,  specifying  that  npon  the  north,  the 
east,  and  the  west,  they  wonld  consist  of  those  given 
to  the  province. 

By  virtue  of  the  law,  the  President  of  the  Republic 
enacted  the  decree  of  January  20,  1885,  by  which  the 
department  of  Tacna  is  divided  into  eight  subdelega- 
tions,  of  which  Tarata  was  the  fifth,  and  Sama  the 
sixth. 

Tarata  a  Subdelegation  of  the  Department  of  Tacna, 

The  limits  of  Tarata  were  established  as  follows : 

' '  Fifth  subdelegation,  Tarata,  shall  be  bounded 
on  the  north  by  the  river  and  ravine  of  Chasapaya, 
which  is  the  same  River  Sama,  following  up  its 
course  *  *  *  on  the  east  by  the  border  of 
Bolivia  and  of  the  Department  of  Puno." 

So  that  there  would  not  exist  any  doubts  as  to  the 
limits  which  the  Chilean  Government  understood  must 
be  assigned  to  the-  territory,  the  decree  enumerated 
the  chief  towns  that  were  to  remain  included  within 
the  national  jurisdiction,  as  follows : 

"This  subdelegation  (the  fifth,  Tarata)  shall  in- 
clude the  towns  and  villages  of  Talabaya,  Esti- 
que,  Tarucachi,  Tarata,  Ticaco,  Challaguaya, 
Sitajara,  Tala  Pistala,  Chucatamani,  Londaniza, 
Putina,  Yabroco,  Coropuro,  Mauri,  and  Cano. 
The  ravines  of  Chero  and  Quilla  and  their  villages 
also  remain  subjected  to  its  jurisdiction.,, 


554 

By  decree  of  November  9,  1885,  the  previous  de- 
markation  was  confirmed,  better  specifying  the  divis- 
ion of  the  districts  of  the  subdelegations.  In  this  de- 
cree, Tarata  appears  as  the  eighth  subdelegation  of 
the  department  of  Tacna  and  Sama  as  the  ninth. 

The  political  division  of  the  department  of  Tacna 
made  in  conformity  with  the  decrees  of  January  20, 
and  of  November  9,  1885,  endured  until  the  year  1911, 
when  the  law  of  December  2  was  enacted,  Article  first 
of  which  states  as  follows : 

"The  Department  of  Tarata  is  hereby  created 
from  the  territories  composed  of  the  eighth  and 
ninth  subdelegations  of  the  department  of  Tacna, 
according  to  the  decree  of  November  9,  1885." 

The  department  of  Tarata  endured  until  September 
22,  1921,  the  date  upon  which  Law  Number  3,802  was 
enacted,  annulling  that  of  December  2,  1911. 

Therefore,  the  subdelegations  of  Tarata  and  Sama 
were  again  incorporated  to  the  department  of  Tacna. 

According  to  the  dispositions  of  the  said  law  number 
3,802,  the  decree  of  October  11  was  enacted,  by  which 
the  departments  of  Tacna  and  Arica  were  divided  into 
subdelegations,  of  which  Tarata  is  the  sixth. 

The  Official  Limits  and  the  Conventional  Limits  of  the 
Province  of  Tacna. 

According  to  the  indications  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace 
and  to  the  official  documents  which  were  had  in  mind 
when  the  limits  of  the  province  were  fixed,  and  in  view 
of  the  reclamations  initiated  by  Peru  because  of  the 
occupation  of  Tarata  and  its  incorporations  to  the  de- 
partment of  Tacna,  the  law  of  September  22d,  which 


555 

dissolved  the  department  of  Tarata,  fixed  definitely  the 
limits  of  the  department  of  Tacna,  as  follows : 

"  Article  II. — The  department  of  Tacna,  of  the 
province  of  that  name,  shall  have  the  following 
limits:  On  the  north,  the  boundary  line  with 
Peru,  to  the  intersection  on  the  north  with  the  as- 
tronomical meridian  of  Ucure  hill,  international 
boundary  line  that  is  made  up  of  the  Sama  River 
in  its  western  part;  on  the  east,  the  astronomical 
meridian  of  Ucure  hill  from  its  intersection  with 
the  Peruvian  line  to  the  north  of  the  said  hill,  up 
to  its  peak;  the  ridge  of  Guaracarane,  the  range 
that  borders  upon  the  north  with  the  hydrographic 
bed  of  the  Usuchima  River,  to  the  mountain  of 
Barroso,  the  hills  of  Gunacure,  the  line  of  peaks 
that  borders  upon  the  east  with  the  hydrographic 
bed  of  the  Caplina  River  and  its  tributaries,  pass- 
ing through  the  gorge  of  Quinuta;  the  hills  of 
Paralocos  and  Chupiquina,  and  the  ridge  of  Huali- 
las,  to  the  pass  of  Huailas ;  on  the  south,  the  ravine 
of  Caunani  from  its  source  at  the  pass  of  Huailas 
to  its  outlet  into  the  sea ;  and  on  the  west,  the  Pa- 
cific Ocean  from  the  outlet  of  the  Caunani  ravine 
to  the  outlet  of  the  Sama  River.' ' 

To  fix  the  limits  precisely,  as  has  been  done  by  the 
law  of  September  22d,  the  studies,  explorations,  and 
drawings  made  by  Chilean  geographers  for  nearly 
twenty  years,  have  been  had  in  mind,  as  is  logical. 

The  international  border,  nevertheless,  as  we  have 
noted  elsewhere,  has  not  been  respected  by  Peru,  as 
since  1884  she  established  authorities  at  the  town  of 
Ticaco.  Since  then  the  de  facto  boundary  line  between 
the  two  countries  has  remained  established  at  the  River 
Tala,  Pistala,  Ticalaco,  Guayatire,  following,  toward 
the  east,  "an  imaginary  line  that  terminates  at  Con- 


556 

chachiri,  a  small  place  situated  on  the  banks  of  the 
Mauri  and  a  short  distance  from  its  source,"  as  was 
stated  by  the  Intendant  of  Tacna  in  a  Memorandum 
presented  to  the  Government  in  1897. 

The  Peruvian  Interpretation. 

The  circular  note  sent  to  the  foreign  Governments 
on  September  20th  by  the  Peruvian  Foreign  Office, 
states  that,  according  to  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of 
Ancon,  Chile  must  occupy  only  the  territory  of  the 
Peruvian  province  of  Arica  and  that  part  of  that  of 
Tacna  which  lay  to  the  south  of  the  Eiver  Sama. 

t  i  Therefore,  it  adds,  she  did  not  have  any  right 
to  retain  any  part  of  the  province  of  Tarata,  all  of 
it  situated  to  the  north  of  that  river,  with  an  area 
of  4,979  square  kilometres,  and  that  was  not  men- 
tioned even,  by  the  Treaty,  which  fixed  the  north- 
ern limits  of  the  territory  that  would  continue  to 
he  occupied  in  the  province  of  Tacna,  stating 
that  it  was  the  Sama  River,  from  its  source  in  the 
mountains  limiting  with  Bolivia  to  its  outlet  into 
the  sea." 

Precisely,  based  upon  the  letter  of  the  pact,  the 
Chilean  Government  fixed  the  northern  boundary  at  the 
highest  tributary  of  the  Sama,  because  it  could  not 
consider  the  administrative  demarkations  of  Peru, 
which  varied  several  times  before  the  war,  and  which, 
after  the  signing  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace,  changed  again 
upon  the  creation  of  the  department  of  Moquegua, 
which  includes  the  zone  called  Free  Tacna. 

Further  on,  the  note  relates  that,  in  1884,  when  the 
Peruvian  authorities,  after  taking  possession,  in  the 


557 

manner  known  to  us,  of  the  section  which  lies  between 
the  Ticalaco  and  Salado  Rivers,  demanded  the  return 
of  the  part  of  Tarata  that  was  occupied  by  Chile. 

"The  Chilean  Commandant  Silva  Arriagada, 
whose  forces  occupied  it,  refused  to  do  so,  alleg- 
ing that  in  view  of  the  information  acquired  by 
the  political  head  of  Tacna,  the  upper  part  of  the 
Sama  Eiver  was  composed  of  the  Ticalaco  ravine 
and  river,  thus  taking,  as  origin  of  the  Sama,  one 
of  its  smallest  tributaries.  This  arbitrary  act  of 
the  Chilean  authorities  meant  the  detention  of  the 
districts  of  Tarata,  Tarucachi,  and  Estique  which 
embrace  a  territorial  extension  of  637  square  kilo- 
metres, with  nearly  4,000  inhabitants." 

We  already  have  stated  the  circumstances  under 
which  the  de  facto  boundary  at  the  Ticalaco  River  was 
established.  Therefore,  we  need  not  prove  the  error 
which  the  Peruvian  note  incurs  in  pretending  to  dem- 
onstrate that  that  river  does  not  constitute  the  chief 
tributary  of  the  Sama,  upon  which  fact  we  are  agreed.. 
Loyally  interpreting  the  Treaty  of  Peace,  the  supreme 
decrees  of  January  20th  and  of  November  9,  1885, 
fixed  the  boundary  at  the  River  Chasapaya,  Salado,  or 
Cano,  all  of  which  names  have  been  given  to  the  upper- 
most tributary  of  the  Sama,  during  its  long  drawn  out 
course.  As  an  historic  fact,  it  must  be  remembered 
that  the  Chilean  negotiator  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace 
proposed  the  Locumba  River,  which  is  a  great  deal 
farther  north  than  the  Sama,  as  the  boundary,  and 
that  only  after  two  lengthy  conferences  did  he  accept 
this  latter  river  as  the  boundary. 

But  Peru  does  not  wish  to  agree  upon  the  rational 
Chilean  interpretation,  and  pretends,  on  the  contrary, 
that  we  accept  as  the  boundary,  the  River  Estique 


558 

which  is  the  southermost  tributary,  and  which  has  its 
source  in  the  Barroso  mountain,  in  the  very  Chilean 
territory  of  Tacna,  and  certainly  very  distant  from  the 
mountains  that  separate  us  from  Bolivia.  Intent  upon 
demonstrating  that  the  Ticalaco  can  serve  as  the 
boundary  as  it  is  a  short  tributary  and  one  of  small 
volume,  she  forgets  that  the  legal  question  is  another 
matter,  and  that  her  arguments,  in  proving  too  much, 
prove  nothing,  as  is  said  in  forensic  jargon. 

It  would  have  been  rational  and  logical  that,  there 
being  no  agreement,  Peru  should  have  proposed  the 
appointment  of  a  joint  commission  that  should  investi- 
gate the  truth,  and  thus  render  more  easy,  an  agree- 
ment between  the  two  countries.  She  did  not  do  this, 
and  in  her  place,  the  initiative  was  taken  by  the  same 
Chilean  negotiator  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace,  Don  Jovino 
Novoa,  as  we  shall  show. 

i 
Peru  Does  Not  Accept  the  Appointment  of  a  Commis- 
sion of  Experts. 

The  Peruvian  Government  protested  against  a  de- 
cree enacted  by  the  political  head  of  Tacna,  by  which 
certain  municipal  taxes  were  imposed  upon  the  in- 
habitants of  Tarata,  as  well  as  upon  those  of  the  rest 
of  the  province,  and  because  of  the  administrative 
division  ordered  by  the  decrees  already  mentioned. 
Upon  these  subjects,  it  addressed  a  note  to  Sr.  Novoa. 
on  February  16, 1885,  which  note  could  not  be  answered 
until  some  time  later,  because  the  Chilean  Minister  left 
Lima  to  come  home. 

Upon  returning  to  Peru,  Sr.  Novoa  addressed  to  the 
Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  the  note  of  March  17, 
1886,  in  which  the  following  may  be  read : 


559 

' '  My  Government,  wishing  to  have  new  reports, 
in  spite  of  the  sure  data  that  it  possessed,  inter- 
viewed the  political  head  of  Tacna,  who  stated  that 
the  taxes  imposed,  which  also  had  been  the  object 
of  observations,  as  well  as  the  subdelegations 
created,  were  within  the  jurisdiction  of  Chile,  ac- 
cording to  the  Treaty  of  October  20th. 

"  The  River  Sama  being  the  northern  boundary 
of  the  territories  whose  possession  belonged  to 
Chile  for  a  term  of  ten  years— a  boundary,  the  fix- 
ing of  which  was  in  fact  the  object  of  two  long 
conferences — the  Chilean  jurisdiction  exercised 
therein,  is  beyond  all  discussion. 

"The  undersigned  was  convinced  that  the  po- 
litical authorities  of  that  territory  had  adjusted 
their  acts  to  that  stipulation  and  to  the  supreme 
orders  and  dispositions  issued  in  obedience  to  what 
had  been  covenanted;  and  that  is  why,  upon  ac- 
knowledging receipt  on  February  18th  of  the  said 
note  of  the  16th,  I  hastened  to  express  that  I  would 
hand  it  to  my  Government  on  the  trip  to  Val- 
paraiso, upon  which  I  was  starting  on  that  very 
same  day;  but  that  since  now  I  could  anticipate 
that,  as  the  honorable  predecessor  of  Your  Excel- 
lency stated  with  so  much  reason,  it  was  impossible 
to  suppose  that  Chile  would  have  then,  or  ever,  the 
intention  of  altering  to  the  smallest  extent  that 
which  she  clearly  and  categorically  had  cove- 
nanted. The  uprightness  of  her  acts  does  not  per- 
mit it  to  be  suspected,  I  added,  even  in  hypothesis, 
arid  I  am  satisfied  to  observe,  that  the  Supreme 
Government  of  Your  Excellency  does  honor  to  the 
loyalty  with  which  the  Republic  that  I  represent 
respects  what  is  due  an  honest  country. 

' '  To  offer  Your  Excellency  an  unequivocal  proof 
that  it  desires  to  solve  all  difficulties,  my  Govern- 
ment proposes  a  means  of  simple  and  correct  solu- 
tion, that  is,  that  a  commission  of  experts,  one  ap- 
pointed by  Chile  and  another  by  Peru,  shall  come 
together  and  study  the  data  that  they  may  deem 


560 

necessary  by  inspecting  the  course  followed  by 
the  Sama  River  from  its  sources  to  its  outlet.  The 
boundary  line  thus  fixed,  in  a  clear  and  unequivocal 
manner,  a  friendly  and  definite  solution  will  have 
been  reached,  and  all  doubts  will  be  settled.''  Jo- 
vino  Novoa. 

The  Peruvian  Government  answered  on  April  2d, 
that  in  its  opinion  the  question  consisted  of  knowing 
which  were  the  limits  of  the  province  of  Tarata,  which 
had  been  excluded  from  the  possession  to  which  Article 
III  of  the  Treaty  refers,  and  did  not  accept  the  idea  of 
a  commission  of  experts,  in  the  following  terms : 

"The  commission  which  Your  Excellency  pro- 
poses, besides  being  liable  to  incur  in  an  error 
because  of  the  lack  of  exactness  of  Article  III  of 
the  Treaty  in  speaking  of  the  Sama  River,  also 
has  the  disadvantage  that  if  the  opinions  of  the 
two  commissioners  do  not  concur,  it  will  be  diffi- 
cult to  adjust  this  difference. ' ' 

Thus  Peru  refused  to  follow  the  course  pointed  out 
to  her  loyalty  by  Chile,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  she 
acknowledged  the  lack  of  exactness  of  the  definition  of 
the  boundary  line  as  contained  in  the  Treaty,  and  left, 
therefore,  the  way  clear  to  initiate  new  discussion 
whenever  it  should  be  convenient  to  her. 

This  Is  a  Geographical  Question. 

Without  referring  anew  to  the  equitable  and  ra- 
tional proposition  of  the  Chilean  Government,  nine 
months  later  Peru  again  opened  the  question  of  Tarata. 
The  Peruvian  Minister,  Sr.  Elias,  on  October  13th,  ad- 
dressed to  the  Foreign  Office  a  note  that  insisted  that 


561 

it  was  a  serious  mistake  to  consider  the  Tarata  River 
as  the  origin  of  the  Sama  River,  when  in  reality  the 
international  boundary  was  fixed  by  Chilean  law  at 
the  Salado  or  Chasapaya  River,  "  which  is  the  same 
Sama  following  up  its  course,"  as  was  stated  in  the 
decree  of  January  20,  1885. 

In  a  memorandum  presented  on  March  5,  1887,  to 
the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile,  the  same 
Sr.  Elias  insists  upon  the  Estique  River  as  the  bound- 
ary. By  note  of  April  18th  he  communicates  to  his 
Government  the  answer  of  this  Ministry,  dated  the 
14th.    In  it,  Sr.  Francisco  Freire  states  as  follows : 

"The  reading  of  that  document  (the  memoran- 
dum) and  the  examination  itself  of  the  light  sketch 
that  you  have  presented  to  me  persuade  my  Gov- 
ernment, more  and  more,  that  this  is  a  geograph- 
ical question,  the  elucidation  of  which,  demands 
an  exact  knowledge  of  the  topography  of  those 
territories,  which  my  Government  and  the  techni- 
cal offices  of  Chile  now  do  not  possess.' ' 

Therefore,  the  interpretation  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace, 
the  text  of  which  is  clear,  and  with  which  my  Gov- 
ernment has  complied  religiously,  not  being  affected, 
Sr.  Freire  insists  upon  the  advisability  of  appointing 
a  Chilean-Peruvian  commission  of  experts,  and  thus 
reaching  an  agreement. 

Peru  again  eluded  the  solution  proposed  and  the 
affair  was  cast  into  oblivion. 

In  a  confidential  note  of  July  10,  1890,  published 
among  the  annexes  to  the  circular  note  of  the  Peruvian 
Foreign  Office  May  26,  1901,  Sr.  Elias,  who  is  once 
more  on  a  mission  before  the  Chilean  Government,  re- 


562 

cords  the  fact  that  the  Peruvian  Government  had  not 
answered  until  then  the  reiterated  Chilean  proposal. 

In  the  meantime,  Sr.  Elias  had  protested  against 
the  inclusion  of  Tarata  in  the  bill  which  was  then  be- 
fore Congress,  about  the  organization  of  the  munici- 
palities of  the  Republic. 

At  last,  on  October  1st,  Sr.  Elias  answered  nega- 
tively respecting  the  appointment  of  a  commission  of 
experts. 

Why  Peru  Did  Not  Accept  the  Investigation  of 
Experts. 

It  is  superflous  to  state  that  Peru  insisted,  in  the  said 
note,  that  the  northern  border  was  the  Estique  River, 
and  that  Chile  alone  could  obtain  the  information  that 
she  thought  necessary  to  remove  her  doubts. 

The  same  strange  reason  is  adduced  by  the  note  of 
September  20,  1921,  adding  the  entirely  inexact  state- 
ment that  the  Peruvian  insinuation,  accepted  by  Chile, 
never  was  carried  out.  As  this  is  far  from  the  truth, 
it  requires  some  explanations. 

In  the  first  place,  we  must  keep  in  mind  the  note 
addressed  by  Sr.  Elias  to  his  Government  on  Decem- 
ber 13,  1890,  to  which  the  circular  note  refers. 

"Sr.  Godoy,"  states  the  Peruvian  Minister, 
1 '  answered  me  that  he  maintained  the  declarations 
of  this  Chancellery,  and  that  the  commissioner 
would  be  sent  as  soon  as  possible,  but  that  we 
must  have  in  mind  the  political  situation  here 
and  the  consequent  preoccupations  of  the  Gov- 
ernment ;  that  besides,  with  the  coming  of  the  Ar- 
gentine boundary  commission,  it  had  been  neces- 
sary to  employ  the  most  competent  persons,  and 
therefore  the  appointment  of  a  person  to  carry 


563 

out  the  said  investigation  must  be  carefully  con- 
sidered, so  that  the  work  shall  be  well  done. ' ' 

These  were  the  moments  when  the  grave  conflict 
between  Congress  and  the  Government,  which  broke 
out  within  a  month,  was  brewing;  at  this  moment  also, 
the  difficult  questions  with  the  Argentine  Eepublic 
were  being  solved.  These  causes  of  the  delay  in  the 
promised  investigation,  were  branded  by  the  Peruvian 
note  as  "specious  reasons.' ' 

The  capricious  statement  that  Chile  never  carried 
out  the  investigation  is  so  evidently  false,  that  proofs 
to  the  contrary  are  almost  unnecessary;  it  would  be 
sufficient  to  exhibit  all  the  maps  and  documents  which 
give  evidence  as  to  the  work  of  Chilean  geographers. 

We  can  cite,  among  many  others,  the  reports  of 
the  engineer  Sr.  Bertrand,  director  of  the  Boundary 
Office,  respecting  the  frontiers  with  Bolivia  and  with 
Peru;  the  reports  of  the  engineers  who  worked  in  the 
Land  Survey  Office  and,  lastly,  the  large  map  of  Chile 
published  in  1910  by  this  same  office. 

According  to  Sr.  Bertrand,  "whichever  tributary  of 
the  Sama  is  considered  as  its  origin,  there  is  still  a 
considerable  distance  (from  50  to  70  kilometres)  be- 
tween the  source  of  that  tributary  and  the  Bolivian 
border/ '  and  therefore,  the  same  engineer  observes 
truly  that  the  definition  given  to  the  northern  boundary 
with  Peru,  by  the  Treaty,  is  inexact  and  incomplete. 

"The  Sama,  concludes  Sr.  Bertrand,  does  not  have 
its  source  in  the  mountains  of  Bolivia.' ' 

This  is  in  open  contradiction  to  the  Peruvian  af- 
firmation, maliciously  repeated,  that  the  source  of 
that  river  is  found  in  the  Estique  River,  which  is  a 
subordinate  tributary. 


564 

Sr.  Bertrand,  basing  his  opinion  upon  the  works 
of  Chilean  engineers,  and  taking  into  consideration 
the  views  of  the  Peruvian  authorities,  Paz  Soldan  and 
Eaimondi,  as  well  as  those  of  the  Bolivians,  Ondarza, 
Dalenee,  and  others,  fixed  the  initial  point  of  the  Bo- 
livian border  somewhat  to  the  north  of  the  Mauri 
Eiver,  at  an  approximate  latitude  of  17°  14'. 

' '  To  complete  the  northern  boundary  of  the  de- 
partment and  of  the  province  of  Tacna  from  the 
Pacific  coast,  it  is  necessary  to  join' this  point 
with  the  source  of  the  Chasapaya  River  or  of  the 
Ticaloco  River.' ' 

It  is  thus  proven  that  the  Peruvian  affirmation,  that 
our  Government  never  had  carried  out  the  promised 
investigation,  is  totally  erroneous. 

Still  more ;  the  topographic  investigations  that  were 
necessary  to  settle  the  point  under  discussion  were 
carried  out  always  in  the  face  of  the  systematic  oppo- 
sition of  Peru. 

As  an  example,  we  are  going  to  cite  the  words  of  the 
Chilean  engineer,  Carlos  Soza  Bruna,  sent  in  1905  to 
search  for  the  traditional  boundary  which  was  said 
to  exist  between  Bolivia  and  Peru. 

' '  The  Peruvian  authorities, ' '  he  states  in  his  re- 
port of  December  12th,  "made  a  display  of  force, 
following  my  footsteps  through  the  present  fron- 
tier, and  letting  me  know  that  they  would  not 
permit  engineers  of  the  Chilean  Government  to  do 
any  work  whatsoever  upon  Peruvian  territory. 

"In  the  town  of  Ticaco,  which  is  separated  from 
Tarata  only  by  the  Eiver  Ticalaco,  resided  a  Pe- 
ruvian Commandant,  whose  name  is  Sotillo,  the 
head  of  the  frontier  district  adjoining  Chile;  a 


565 

governor,  a  police  commissioner,  a  customs  agent, 
and  some  police  forces.  During  my  sojourn  in 
that  region,  the  chief  of  police  Candarave  came, 
accompanied  by  more  police,  to  re-enforce  the  said 
detachment.  Part  of  this  detachment  was  re- 
moved to  the  source  of  the  Mauri,  on  each  of  my 
excursions  to  the  interior." 

Those  were  the  conditions  under  which  the  Chilean 
engineers  must  work,  and  thus  is  revealed  the  syste- 
matic plan  of  Peru  not  to  settle  fairly  the  so-called 
"Question  of  Tarata." 

The  Peruvian  Reclamation  and  the  Treaty  of  Ancon, 

If  the  Peruvian  Government  had  accepted  the  invi- 
tation made  to  it  by  Chile  through  the  negotiator  of 
the  Treaty  of  Peace,  Sr.  Novoa,  to  study  the  question 
of  the  sources  of  the  Sama  upon  the  ground,  the 
strange  controversy  that  it  maintains  until  now,  sus- 
taining that  the  region  of  Tarata  was  not  ceded  to  our 
country  by  the  pact  of  Ancon,  would  have  disappeared. 

It  is  curious  to  note  the  fact  that  Peru  should  con- 
tinue making  this  allegation  after  having  declared  that 
treaty  null. 

The  circular  note  of  September  20th  is  devoted 
wholly  to  proving  that  Chile  occupies  that  territory 
unlawfully. 

We  have  seen  already  that  Peru  refused  to  appoint 
a  commission  of  experts  to  study  the  frontier  line; 
that  it  insinuated  afterwards  to  my  Government  that 
the  latter  should  make,  on  its  own  account,  the  inves- 
tigations necessary,  and  lastly,  that  when  Chilean  en- 
gineers went  to  the  limiting  mountains  to  carry  out 
topographic  studies,  the  Peruvian  forces  placed  all 


566 

sorts  of  obstacles  in  their  way  and  prevented  them 
from  crossing  the  de  facto  frontier  which  they  them- 
selves had  established,  and  which  was  tolerated  by 
the  Chilean  Government  in  order  to  prevent  greater 
difficulties. 

The  reasons  given  by  Peru  for  her  refusal  to  concur 
in  an  expert  investigation  are  of  two  sorts :  on  the  one 
hand,  she  pretends  that  Chile  would  accept  without 
discussion  what  she,  Peru,  considers  as  the  source  of 
the  Sama  Eiver,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  Chile 
would  submit  herself  to  the  Peruvian  regulations  re- 
specting administrative  demarcations. 

Our  Government  never  having  accepted  these  capri- 
cious pretensions,  Peru  has  believed  that  she  has  the 
right  to  protest,  each  time  that  the  occasion  has  ap- 
peared favorable  to  her,  against  any  resolution  which 
Chile  might  have  taken  respecting  the  division  of  the 
territories  which  she  occupied  at  the  time  of  the  sign- 
ing of  the  Treaty  of  Peace,  and  which  were  handed 
over  to  her  conditionally  by  Article  III  of  that  Pact. 

The  first  protests  were  made,  as  we  have  recalled, 
upon  the  enactment  of  the  law  which  created  the 
province  of  Tacna  and  upon  the  issuance  of  the  com- 
plementary decrees  of  the  year  1885. 

In  1890,  she  protests  again  against  the  dispositions 
of  the  project  regarding  the  organization  of  the  mu- 
nicipalities. 

In  1911,  she  protests  once  more  because  the  depart- 
ment of  Tarata  was  formed  from  the  subdelegations 
of  Sama  and  Tarata. 

Now  in  the  circular  note  of  September  20th,  there  is 
a  new  protest  because  that  measure  was  left  without 
effect  and  the  subdelegations  named,  aerain  formed  a 


567 

part  of  the  department  to  which  they  formerly  had 
belonged. 

These  are  the  Peruvian  tactics ;  never  to  resolve  the 
questions  that  she  brings  up  to  Chile,  so  that  she  may 
have  the  pleasure  of  protesting  and  of  picking  a  quar- 
rel with  our  country,  each  time  that  the  internal  politi- 
cal situation  requires  that  a  conflict,  and  hatred  should 
be  used  as  the  means  of  maintaining  the  dictatorship 
in  power. 

This  is  the  truth  which  we  know  too  well,  and  al- 
though we  know  that  it  is  a  loss  of  time,  so  far  as  it 
respects  Peru,  to  prove  the  error  of  the  Peruvian  thesis 
upon  the  question  of  Tarata,  we  do  it  nevertheless, 
in  order  to  let  you  know  all  the  details  of  this  ques- 
tion so  that  you  may  transmit  them  to  the  Foreign 
Office  of  that  country,  and,  if  you  esteem  it  convenient, 
to  public  opinion  by  means  of  the  press.  We  desire, 
specially,  that  the  bases  of  the  policy  that  Chile  has 
pursued  with  respect  to  the  interpretation  of  that 
clause  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  which  points  out  the 
boundary  between  the  two  countries,  be  known. 

Before  terminating,  I  think  it  convenient  to  add  a 
few  facts  about  the  geographic  situation  of  Tarata  in 
the  opinion  of  a  Peruvian  geographer,  and  about  the 
industrial  and  strategic  importance,  to  Chile,  of  pos- 
sessing Tarata. 

The  Situation  of  Tarata  as  Made  Clear  by  a  Peruvian 
Geographer. 

We  have  not  any  doubts  respecting  the  true  inter- 
national situation  of  the  territories  that  belong  to  the 
northern  frontier. 

The  same  thing  seems  to  occur  with  the  Peruvian 


568 

geographers  and  their  testimony  serves  to  sustain  the 
Chilean  thesis  in  all  of  its  parts. 

We  recalled  the  opinion  of  the  engineer  Teobaldo 
Elespuru,  cited  in  the  Peruvian  note  of  September 
20th,  according  to  which  there  are  three  tributaries 
to  the  Sama  Eiver,  of  which  the  upper  and  the  lower 
carry  the  most  water..  The  expert  investigation  could 
have  established  upon  a  certainty  that  the  first  is  the 
longer  and  the  more  regular,  and  therefore  may  be 
considered  as  the  same  River  Sama,  in  its  upper 
course. 

Now  we  are  going  to  cite  the  description  of  the 
boundaries  and  territories  in  question  made  by  an- 
other Peruvian  geographer,  the  navy  captain,  German 
Stighich,  author  of  the  "Geografia  Comentada  del 
Peru."  In  his  recent  work,  "Diccionario  Geografico 
del  Peru"  and  "Almanaque  de  La  Croiiica"  for  1918, 
edited  by  N.  Moral,  at  Lima,  the  following  paragraphs 
are  found : 

' '  Page  3. — Position  and  political  division  of 
Peru;  with  Brazil,  the  boundary  extends  from  the 
Caqueta  River  to  the  Acre;  with  Bolivia,  from 
the  latter  to  the  Mauri;  and  with  Chile  (the  pro- 
visional boundary),  from  the  confluence  of  the 
Mauri  with  the  Ancomarca  and  to  the  sea  along 
the  Sama  River. 

"Page  428. — Tacna. — This  southern  circum- 
scription of  Peru  was  divided  into  two  parts  by 
the  Treaty  of  Ancon;  one,  which  is  occupied  by 
Chile,  as  the  plebiscite  has  not  been  held  yet,  and 
the  other,  which  is  under  Peruvian  sovereignty. 
The  latter  is  called  Free  Tacna.  The  former  is 
composed  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna,  incomplete, 
Arica,  and  part  of  that  of  Tarata.  On  the  Peru- 
vian side,  only  remain  the  rest  of  Tacna  and  what 


569 

is  left  of  Tarata.  The  Sama  River  separates  the 
Chilean  occupation.  The  Eiver  Camarones,  on 
the  south,  separates  Tarapaca  from  the  Depart- 
ment of  Tacna. 

' '  Page  437.— Tarata.— This  province,  until  the 
enactment  of  the  law  of  November  12, 1874,  formed 
part  of  that  of  Tacna.  The  said  law  created  the 
province  from  some  of  the  districts  of  Tacna.  The 
Treaty  of  Ancon,  in  pointing  out  the  Sama  River 
as  the  boundary  between  Peru  and  Chile  until  the 
fate  of  the  captive  provinces  is  decided  has  ex- 
cluded a  part  of  Tarata  from  our  dominion,  that 
is  to  say,  the  districts  of  Tarata,  Estique  and 
Tarucachi;  the  capital  of  Tarata  was  Tarata, 
until  the  decree  of  October  12,  1886,  made  Can- 
darave  the  capital  of  the  Peruvian  section.  Tarata 
is  separated  from  Moquegua  by  the  ravine  of 
Ingenio. 

' '  Page  438. — Tarata. — The  district  of  Tarata  is 
occupied  by  Chile  as  it  is  on  the  left  side  of  the 
Sama  River." 

This  is  what  Peruvian  geographers  know,  and  teach 
us. 

The  Government  thinks  otherwise.  We  do  not  know 
the  reasons  therefor,  but  they  may  be  deduced  by 
glancing  upon  the  map,  and  by  having  in  mind  the  gen- 
eral considerations  with  which  we  shall  put  an  end  to 
our  discretion. 

The  Industrial  and  Strategic  Importance  of  Tarata. 

In  the  territory  occupied  by  the  subdelegation  of 
Tarata  is  found  the  town  of  that  name  which  may  be 
considered  as  the  capital  of  the  Sierra,  and  as  the  com- 
mercial center  for  the  frontier  towns. 

Tarata  is  built  upon  the  slope  of  the  Santa  Barbara 


570 

hill,  and  is  divided  by  a  gully  into  two  districts,  called 
Yungas  and  Lupaja,  respectively.  In  the  extreme 
southeastern  part  of  the  latter  district,  there  is  an- 
other section  called  Calvario.  The  town  consists  of 
about  500  houses,  the  greater  part  of  which  are  thatch 
roofed  huts.  According  to  the  1920  census,  the  inhabi- 
tants number  2,000. 

The  area  of  the  cultivated  territories  surrounding 
Tarata  is  about  4,000  topos  (one  topo  being  equal  to 
5,000  square  yards).  The  greater  or  lesser  extension 
of  cultivation,  depends  on  the  greater  or  lesser  abund- 
ance of  water. 

The  chief  products  of  Tarata  are  corn,  potatoes, 
and  alfalfa,  the  production  being  very  high  consider- 
ing the  small  extension  of  ground  cultivated.  ,  The 
system  of  intensive  farming  and  the  careful  atten- 
tion with  which  the  work  is  done,  are  remarkable,  es- 
pecially the  system  of  irrigation  used  to  carry  water 
to  the  steep  slopes  where  are  the  sown  fields. 

The  commercial  importance  of  Tarata  is  not  based 
upon  its  agricultural  production  alone,  but  also  upon 
the  situation  occupied  by  this  town  as  the  most  im- 
portant center  of  the  Sierra,  as  well  upon  the  Chilean 
side  as  upon  the  Peruvian. 

From  Tarata*  there  are  good  roads  to  Puno,  to  Are- 
quipa,  to  the  interior  of  Bolivia,  to  the  towns  and  val- 
leys beyond  the  frontier,  to  Tacna,  and  to  all  the 
villages  of  the  subdelegation.  Upon  these  roads,  cat- 
tle is  seen  constantly  being  driven  from  Peru  to 
Tarata  to  be  fattened,  and  then  to  supply  the  mar- 
kets of  Tacna,  Arica,  and  Tarapaca  with  meat;  also, 
packs  of  mules,  donkeys,  and  llamas  laden  with  kind- 
ling-wood from  Mauri  or  from  the  Bolivian  woodlands, 


571 

and  carrying  in  return  corn,  potatoes,  or  merchandise 
bought  in  the  shops  of  Tarata. 

Tarata  also  possesses  great  strategic  value ;  the  val- 
ley of  Tacna  cannot  be  invaded  by  an  enemy  army,  if 
a  division  of  our  army  occupies  Tarata  and  from  there 
keeps  careful  watch  upon  the  line  of  the  Sama. 

The  frontier  between  Chile  and  Peru  is  composed 
of  a  series  of  ravines  which  form  one  great  defile. 
Therefore,  a  few  light  columns  stationed  at  Tarata  can 
prevent  any  advance  of  enemy  forces. 

The  natural  resources  of  Tarata  make  possible  the 
permanent  providing  of  a  division  quartered  there, 
and  the  threatening  of  Tacna,  as  was  done  in  1883 
by  the  Peruvian  guerrilla,  Pacheco  Cespedes,  who  at 
the  head  of  cavalry  troops  and  of  a  column  of  in- 
fantry, which  he  transported  by  mounting  them  to- 
gether with  the  horsemen,  and  who,  in  possession  of 
Tarata,  made  frequent  incursions  to  the  very  gates  of 
Tacna,  where  a  division  of  the  reserve  army  was  sta- 
tioned. 

An  army  that  would  march  from  Tacna  to  attack 
troops  quartered  at  Tarata,  doubtlessly  would  be  de- 
stroyed in  the  mountain  passes,  even  by  a  small  num- 
ber of  light  troops. 

It  may  be  affirmed  categorically  that,  if  Tarata  were 
in  the  hands  of  enemy  forces  capable  of  operating,  it 
would  be  impossible  to  protect  the  railroad  from  Arica 
to  La  Paz  from  surprise  attacks. 

The  possession  of  Tarata  is  of  importance  to  Chile 
also  because  in  this  subdelegation,  and  precisely  in  the 
zone  that  is  to  the  north  of  the  Estique  Eiver,  are 
found  the  sources  of  the  principal  rivers  of  Tacna, 
those  that  make  possible  its  agriculture. 


572 

If  we  should  accept  the  Peruvian  pretension  of  con- 
sidering the  Estique  River  as  the  continuation  of  the 
Sanaa  up  to  its  source  in  the  mountain  of  Barroso, 
as  the  boundary  line  between  Chile  and  Peru,  we  would 
be  leaving  in  Peruvian  territory  the  Mauri  Eiver  and 
twelve  of  its  principal  tributaries,  as  well  as  the 
Uchusuma  River  with  all  its  tributaries. 

Ernesto  Barros. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  to  Minister  of 
Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 

[Translation.] 
(Telegram.) 

Lima,  December  24,  1921, 

Mr.  Minister: 

If  the  gravity  of  the  question,  the  solution  of  which 
absorbs  the  efforts  and  hopes  of  my  Government, 
would  permit  its  subordination  to  the  discussion  of 
matters  of  secondary  importance  it  would  be  easy  to 
demonstrate  that  the  communications  addressed  by 
my  predecessors  to  those  of  Your  Excellency  in  1904 
and  1905,  the  diplomatic  relations  between  Chile  and 
Peru  being  at  that  time  interrupted,  but  not  in  the  vio- 
lent manner  which  characterized  the  withdrawal  of  the 
Peruvian  Consular  Agents,  had  a  different  significance 
from  that  shown  by  the  communication  of  Your  Ex- 
cellency of  the  12th  instant. 

It  was  not  meant,  ignoring  international  practices, 
to  initiate  any  negotiation,  but  to  comply  in  one  case 
with  the  duty  of  safeguarding  the  rights  of  Peru  be- 


573 

cause  of  the  arbitrary  delimitation  of  the  Provinces 
of  Arica  and  Pisagua,  and,  in  the  other  case,  with  the 
no  less  unavoidable  duty  of  protesting  against  the  pro- 
visions of  the  Bolivian-Chilean  Treaty  referring  to  the 
construction  of  the  railroad  from  Arica  to  La  Paz. 

Similarly,  I  could  prove  that,  no  matter  what  the 
designation  given  to  the  unfruitful  exchange  of  cables 
in  November,  1912,  for  the  fixing  of  the  plebiscite  bases 
and  the  reestablishing  of  the  broken  relations  between 
the  two  countries,  they  never  had,  nor  could  they  ever 
have,  the  character  of  a  covenant  with  power  for  its 
reviving  nine  years  later. 

I  could  also  prove  the  expulsion  of  more  than 
eighteen  thousand  Peruvians  from  Tacna,  Arica  and 
Tarapaca,  by  only  repeating  the  text  of  the  circulars 
addressed  by  this  Minister  to  the  Legations  of  Peru 
abroad,  under  dates  of  January  12  and  February  14, 
1919,  answering  those  of  Senor  Luis  Barros  Borgono 
of  December  6, 1918,  and  January  10, 1919 ;  and  I  could 
also  enumerate  the  violations  committed  by  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Chile  against  the  Treaty  of  Peace  of  1883, 
as  have  been  cited,  by  the  maltreating  of  persons,  by 
the  plundering  and  burning  of  the  property  of  my 
countrymen  in  Pisagua,  November  2,  1918,  in  Iquique, 
the  31st  of  October,  and  the  2nd  and  24th  of  November 
of  the  same  year,  with  the  consequent  deportation  of 
Peruvians  without  other  cause  than  that  of  their  na- 
tionality; all  acts  in  violation  of  Article  I  of  the 
Treaty,  which  declared  that  the  relations  of  peace  and 
friendship  between  our-  two  countries  had  been  re- 
established with  the  consequent  guarantee  for  the  re- 
spective countrymen  in  each  country. 

I  could  also  record :  the  annexing  of  the  borax  fields 
of  Chilcaya  to  the  territories  that  had  been  perma- 
nently ceded  to  Chile,  although  it  had  been  acknowl- 


574 

edged  by  experts,  judges  and  courts  of  Chile  that  they 
belonged  to  Arica,  and  were,  therefore,  within  the  ter- 
ritories, the  re-annexation  of  which  was  assured  to 
Peru,  thus  unlawfully  changing  the  stipulations  of  Ar- 
ticle II;  the  usurpation  of  a  large  part  of  the 
Province  of  Tarata  that  was  not  even  mentioned  in 
Article  III;  and  the  difficulties  imposed  by  Chile  for 
the  holding  of  the  plebiscite,  in  opposition,  therefore, 
to  the  provisions  of  the  same  article. 

With  what  has  been  previously  said,  that  has  so 
deeply  hurt  the  national  soul,  all  direct  understanding 
between  Peru  and  Chile  was  made  impossible.  It  is 
opportune  to  state  at  this  time  that  the  ex-Minister  of 
Foreign  Affairs  of  Chile,  referred  to  by  Your  Excel- 
lency could  not  be  received  last  year  by  President 
Leguia,  notwithstanding  the  fact  of  the  modification  of 
the  letter  which  seemed  to  accredit  him  as  Agent  from 
Chile,  because  the  modification  was  maintained  in  the 
same  inaccep table  terms.  It  could,  also  finally,  place 
upon  record  the  retention  of  a  part  of  the  price  of  the 
guano  of  the  Lobos  Islands  ceded  to  Peru  in  accord- 
ance with  Article  X,  and  other  additional  infractions. 
But,  as  I  have  stated  above,  it  is  not  my  intention,  nor 
does  my  Government  think  it  opportune  to  recall  at 
this  moment  incidents  that,  notwithstanding  the  con- 
clusive nature  of  the  evidence,  are  eclipsed  by  the  fun- 
damental question  at  present  dividing  Chile  from  Peru, 
and  for  the  sake  of  which  honest  and  fair  solution  we 
are  obliged  to  eliminate  the  difficulties  that  would  arise 
from  the  refutation,  in  extenso,  of  the  points  alluded 
to  in  the  telegraphic  communication  of  Your  Excel- 
lency, dated  the  20th  instant,  to  wThich  I  have  the  honor 
to  refer. 

Coming,  therefore,  to  that  which  might  lead  us  to 
eliminate  from  America  the  general  uneasiness  pro- 


575 

voked  by  our  longstanding  conflict,  it  is  with  pleasure 
that  I  declare  to  Your  Excellency  that  I  take  due  no- 
tice, as  Your  Excellency  informs  me,  that  Chile  is  dis- 
posed not  to  refuse  the  arbitration  for  the  settlement 
of  the  political  question  pending  with  Peru.  With 
this  attitude  of  mind,  the  only  one  possible  from  the 
standpoint  of  justice  and  for  the  mutual  advantage  of 
both  countries,  there  are  no  differences  that  could  not 
be  solved;  therefore,  in  order  to  accept  the  invitation 
given  by  Your  Excellency  for  the  purpose  of  continu- 
ing the  negotiations,  I  hope  that  Your  Excellency  will 
formulate  your  declaration  in  favor  of  full  arbitration 
which  should  settle  all  the  questions  originating  from 
the  violation  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  of  1883. 

Peru  does  not,  therefore,  agree  with  Chile  that  the 
only  problem  to  be  debated  between  both  countries  is 
the  fulfillment  of  Article  III  of  the  said  Treaty;  it  is 
exactly  because  of  this  disagreement  that  an  arbitra- 
tion is  made  necessary  for  the  solving  of  all  differences 
and  that  is  why  I  have  proposed  an  unbiased  Ameri- 
can arbitration  under  the  auspices  of  the  Government 
of  United  States  of  America,  which  would  bring  us  an 
immediate  and  appreciable  advantage,  that  of  saving 
a  vexatious  and  aggravating  direct  discussion  about 
the  differences. 

I  hope  Your  Excellency  will  join  me  in  this  opinion 
and  will  contribute  your  valuable  assistance  for  the 
safeguarding  of  the  issue  of  the  arbitration.  I  wish 
to  tell  you  that,  in  that  event,  my  Government  will  be 
glad  to  appoint  a  representative  in  order,  that  as  soon 
as  possible,  he  may  meet  at  Washington  with  him  whom 
Your  Excellency  would  care  to  appoint  for  the  purpose 
of  discussing  and  agreeing  to  detailed  bases  and  the 
object  of  the  arbitration  which  would  then  be  submitted 
for  the  definite  approval  of  the  two  Governments  for 
its  fulfillment. 


576 

In  thus  well  defining  the  policy  of  Peru,  in  its  rela- 
tion with  Chile,  I  meet  in  the  most  efficacious  way  the 
spirit  of  cordiality  invoked  by  the  Government  of  Your 
Excellency,  sure  as  I  am  that  in  this  way  only  we  shall 
succeed  in  establishing  peace  and  harmony  in  our  con- 
tinent, so  long  delayed  and  that  can  only  return  under 
the  auspices  of  just  proceedings  and  international 
honesty. 

Reiterating,  Mr.  Minister,  the  sentiments  of  my 
highest  and  most  distinguished  consideration,  I  am, 

Alberto  Salomon. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile  to  Minister  of 
Foreign  Relations  of  Peru. 

[Translation.] 
(Telegram.) 

Santiago,  December  26,  1921. 
Me.  Minister: 

The  answer  that  Your  Excellency  was  kind  enough 
to  give  to  my  telegraphic  note  of  the  20th  instant, 
causes  rejoicing  for  the  possibility  of  a  satisfactory 
settlement  of  the  controversy  which  keeps  our  two 
countries  apart. 

I  always  have  thought  that  with  the  contact  of  di- 
rect conversations,  nobly  inspired,  very  many  of  the 
reefs  that  until  now  have  obstructed  the  perfect  re- 
sumption of  our  commercial  and  political  relations 
might  disappear ;  and  it  is  for  that  reason  that  I  note, 
with  deep  satisfaction,  that  Your  Excellency  has  so 
willingly  received  the  idea  of  negotiating  directly  in 
Washington,  for  the  purpose  of  reaching  an  agreement 


577 

regarding  the  plebiscitary  difficulties  that  have  until 
now  delayed  the  fulfillment  of  the  Treaty  of  1883  and 
of  submitting  to  the  decision  of  an  arbitrator  those  dif- 
ferences which  the  good  will  of  the  negotiators  and  the 
noble  dispositions  of  their  Governments  would  not 
alone  be  enough  to  adjust  and  remove. 

I  attribute  exclusively  to  the  long  diplomatic  inter- 
diction that  has  existed  between  Chile  and  Peru  and 
to  the  unfounded  suspicions  and  lack  of  confidence  that 
it  has  provoked,  the  circumstance  that  Your  Excellency 
renews  to  my  Government  the  imputation  of  having 
violated  in  different  parts  the  Treaty  of  1883. 

No  doubt,  the  contact  of  our  plenipotentiaries  in 
Washington  will  be  sufficient  to  remove  such  supposi- 
tions, as  it  will  be  very  easy  to  exhibit  pertinent  docu- 
ments- in  each  particular  case,  which  will  prove  that 
those  suppositions  are  but  creations  of  that  atmosphere 
of  animosity  in  which  Peru  and  Chile  have  lived  dur- 
ing these  last  years,  with  such  mutual  disadvantage. 

The  Treaty  of  1883,  to  which  in  exact  and  opportune 
phrase  the  Minister  of  Peru  in  Chile,  His  Excellency 
Senor  Seoane,  attributed  in  1908  "the  force  of  inter- 
national law,"  will  be  fulfilled  by  my  Government  in 
all  its  parts;  although  it  will  not  allow  its  mandates 
and  regulations  to  be  at  any  time  altered,  I  can  assure 
Your  Excellency  that  it  will  be  willing  to  consider  and 
settle  in  a  friendly  way  all  the  difficulties  which  may 
have  arisen  to  prevent  its  proper  fulfillment. 

Therefore,  my  Government  will  create  in  Washing- 
ton a  mission  duly  instructed  to  attempt,  together  with 
the  mission  which  Your  Excellency's  Government  may 
send,  to  reach  a  settlement  of  the  pending  difficulties 
and  fix,  in  agreements  which  will  be  submitted  for  the 
approval  of  both  Governments,  the  bases  and  matters 
for  an  arbitration  to  solve  those  differences  which 


578 

should  prove  impossible  of  solution  through  direct 
agreement  and  which  may  be  indispensable  for  the 
exact  and  true  fulfillment  of  the  Treaty  of  1883. 

I  agree  with  Your  Excellency  that  there  is  no  justi- 
fication for  continuing  these  telegraphic  conversations, 
through  which  it  seems  impossible  to  introduce  new 
elements  of  understanding  and  agreement,  and  I  feel 
assured  that  our  plenipotentiaries  will  complete,  in 
Washington,  the  work  which  the  Government  of  Chile 
initiated  with  such  high  aspirations  of  cordiality  and 
peace. 

I  renew  to  Your  Excellency  the  assurances  of  my 
highest  and  most  distinguished  consideration. 

Eknesto  Barros. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  to  Minister  of 
Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 


(Telegram.) 


[Translation.] 

Lima,  Deoember  28,  1921. 


Mr.  Minister: 

The  favorable  disposition  shown  by  the  Chilean 
Government,  according  to  the  telegraphic  communica- 
tion of  Your  Excellency,  dated  the  26th  instant,  which 
I  was  much  pleased  to  receive,  to  obtain  a  settlement 
of  all  existing  differences  between  Peru  and  Chile,  by 
means  of  arbitration,  gives  confidence  that  this  time  it 
will  be  possible  to  reach  a  prompt,  definite  and  satis- 
factory solution  of  the  said  differences,  inasmuch  as 
the  solution  is  protected  by  this  atmosphere  of  con- 
ciliation. 


579 

I  think  it  would  be  reciprocally  beneficial  not  to  im- 
pede the  wholesome  movement  of  understanding  that 
has  been  initiated  and  there  will  be  nothing  more 
efficacious  for  continuing  it  than  to  avoid  in  the  future 
the  possibility  of  ill-feelings  arising  which  may  make 
our  efforts  fruitless. 

For  this  purpose  I  wish  to  note  that  my  Government 
has  at  no  time  intended  nor  expressed  the  purpose  to 
negotiate  directly  in  Washington  for  the  purpose  of 
reaching  an  agreement  regarding  the  plebiscitary 
difficulties,  but  only  for  submitting  to  the  decision  of 
an  arbitrator  the  differences  which  are  impossible  to 
remove  and  solve  directly. 

No.  The  renewal  of  direct  discussions  on  this  topic 
which  for  such  a  long  time  has  been  treated  in  that 
form  without  the  slightest  success  will  not  now  bring 
about  harmonious  results. 

I  reiterate,  then,  the  proposal  which  I  made  to  Your 
Excellency  with  full  clarity  that  as  soon  as  the  declara- 
tion of  Your  Excellency  in  favor  of  the  full  arbitra- 
tion might  be  presented  in  a  formal  way  my  Govern- 
ment would  be  willing  to  appoint  a  representative  to 
meet  in  Washington  with  the  representative  of  Chile, 
for  the  purpose  of  jointly  and  solemnly  submitting 
our  differences  to  the  decision  of  an  arbitrator. 

I  also  believe  convenient — as  an  unavoidable  mani- 
festation of  courtesy  to  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  and  I  thus  propose  to  Your  Excellency — that 
before  proceeding  to  the  appointment  of  the  person 
who  will  truly  represent  each  Government  in  the 
carrying  out  of  this  negotiation  in  Washington,  that 
simultaneously  telegraphic  messages  to  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  of  America  ought  to  be  sent 
through  the  Honorable  Secretary  of  State,  on  the  date 
and  hour  that  Your  Excellency  desires,  for  the  pur- 


580 

0 

pose  of  asking  not  only  the  necessary  consent  for  the 
negotiation  to  take  place  at  that  Federal  Capital,  but 
with  the  main  purpose  of  obtaining  from  the  President 
of  the  United  States  of  America,  the  acceptance  of  the 
arbitral  functions  in  order  to  decide  unappealably 
relative  to  all  the  differences  existing  between  Peru 
and  Chile,  growing  out  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  of  Oc- 
tober 20,  1883. 

Reiterating,  Mr.    Minister,   the    sentiments    of   my 
highest  and  most  distinguished  consideration 

Alberto   Salomon. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile  to  Mimster  of 
Foreign  Relations  of  Peru. 

[Translation.] 
(Telegram.) 

Santiago,  December  29,  1921. 
Mk.  Minister: 

With  the  intention  of  denning  historical  responsi- 
bilities emanating  from  the  invitation  which  I  had  the 
honor  to  direct  to  the  Government  of  Your  Excellency 
under  date  of  the  12th  instant,  with  the  purpose  of 
carrying  out  the  plebiscite  that  is  to  determine  the 
definitive  nationality  of  the  territories  of  Tacna  and 
Arica,  it  seems  opportune  to  insist  on  the  attitude  of 
my  Government  on  this  question  which  periodically 
disturbs  the  tranquility  of  America. 

Your  Excellency  cannot  ignore  that  after  a  long  and 
bloody  war  of  four  years  duration,  which  my  country 
was  forced  to  endure  with  indescribable  sacrifice,  a 


581 

pact  that  definitely  re-established  the  relations  of 
peace  and  friendship  between  the  two  countries  was 
agreed  to  with  Peru.  One  of  the  provisions  of  this 
Treaty  gave  to  Chile,  as  Your  Excellency  has  stated, 
the  unconditional  and  perpetual  ownership  of  the 
province  of  Tarapaca,  and  another  provision  of  the 
same  Treaty  gave  Chile  the  dominion  and  sovereignty 
over  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  under  the 
condition  that  a  plebiscite,  expressing  the  will  of  its 
inhabitants,  should  decide,  later  on,  its  definite  future'. 

Eeasons,  which  it  is  not  my  intention  to  record  at 
this  time,  and  which  enumeration  would  confirm  the 
sincerity  and  the  persistence  with  which  my  country 
has  always  sought  to  reach  an  accord  with  that  of 
Your  Excellency  to  agree  upon  the  plebiscitary  bases, 
have  until  now  impeded  the  carrying  out  of  that  act 
prescribed  by  the  Treaty  of  Ancon. 

It  is  opportune  to  record  that  the  plebiscite  has 
not  been  carried  out,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  on 
more  than  one  occasion  perfect  accord  between  the 
two  Governments  relative  to  its  bases  and  its  essential 
characteristics  has  been  reached;  resolutions,  the  ex- 
istence of  which,  however,  were  recognized  in  recent 
notes  of  Your  Excellency  have  been  indiscriminately 
repudiated  by  the  Government  of  Your  Excellency 
during  the  course  of  the  present  telegraphic  con- 
versation   initiated    by    my    Government. 

The  Government  of  Chile,  actually  and  freely  ex- 
ercising sovereignty  over  the  territories  mentioned, 
could  easily  have  excused  itself  from  promoting,  as 
with  generous  and  fair  disposition  it  has  been  willing 
to  promote,  the  arrival  of  the  sole  condition  on  which 
rest  the  hopes  of  the  Peruvian  expectations  of  recover- 
ing the  dominion  over  Tacna  and  Arica;  but,  anxious 
to  dissipate  once  and  for  all  the  international  restless- 


582 

ness  caused  by  this  problem,  has  invited  the  Govern- 
ment of  Your  Excellency  to  seek  a  solution  founded  on 
the  plebiscitary  bases  as  proposed  by  Peru  in  the  year 
1912  and  to  consider  the  just  and  equitable  modifica- 
tion of  those  which  Your  Excellency  has  been  willing 
to  suggest. 

Within  those  terms,  and  accepted  by  my  Govern- 
ment, the  arbitral  solution  for  settling  the  disagree- 
ments which  might  have  emanated  from  the  direct 
negotiations,  it  might  have  been  expected  that  Chile 
and  Peru  would  have  at  last  fraternally  reached  a 
friendly  solution  of  their  existing  difficulties. 

Unfortunately,  Your  Excellency  has  desired  to  indi- 
cate as  the  sole  manner  of  reaching  the  accord  sought 
by  my  Government,  the  holding  of  a  "full  arbitration " 
not  only  comprising  the  pending  differences,  as  has 
been  proposed  by  my  Government,  but  other  ques- 
tions, which  Your  Excellency  has  not  even  taken  the 
trouble  to  point  out,  even  if  only  to  justify  before  the 
world  the  new  point  of  view  apart  from  all  the  terms 
about  which  the  diplomatic  debates  have  been  so  far 
maintained,  and  which  suddenly  bursts  forth  obstruc- 
ing  a  solution  which  seemed  certain  of  results. 

Your  Excellency  wants  us  to  submit  to  arbitration 
the  results  of  the  War  of  the  Pacific,  38  years  after  its 
conclusion;  to  refer  its  results  for  revision  by  an  out- 
sider ;  and  to  violently  distort  the  course  of  historical 
facts  placing  under  discussion  the  rights  derived 
therefrom,  rights  that  have  the  full  force  of  a  definite 
situation. 

Because  of  this  initiative  of  settlement  our  eager- 
ness for  conciliation  and  harmony  has  gone  as  far  as 
possible.  Unfortunately,  the  Government  of  Your  Ex- 
cellency has  desired  to  resist  coming  to  an  agreement 
as  much  as  we  have  tried  to  obtain  it. 


583 

Peremptorily  rejected  by  you  the  invitation  to  hold 
the  plebiscite;  rejected  the  arbitration  for  the  equit- 
able fixing  of  its  external  formalities ;  rejected,  after- 
wards, the  friendly  solution  offered  by  the  Chilean 
Government  to  settle  all  the  other  claims,  stated  by 
Your  Excellency,  that  have  arisen  or  may  arise  out 
of  the  exact  fulfillment  of  the  Treaty  of  1883 ;  and  pro- 
posed in  place  thereof  a  "full  arbitration "  without 
definite  shape,  and  impossible,  on  account  of  its  own 
vagueness,  of  being  carried  out  in  accordance  with  the 
invariable  principles  of  international  law,  Your  Ex- 
cellency can  therefore  but  agree  with  me  in  the  con- 
clusion that  it  is  best  to  put  an  end  to  this  telegraphic 
exchange  of  ideas,  deploring  as  I  do  the  fruitlessness 
of  the  untiring  efforts  my  Government  has  made  in  the 
cause  of  American  peace  and  concord. 

From  Your  Excellency's  far-sightedness,  undoubt- 
edly, will  not  escape  the  juridical  consequences  follow- 
ing upon  the  placing  of  obstacles  in  the  way  of  the 
celebration  of  a  plebiscite,  which  is  the  only  expect- 
ancy that  Peru  has  for  the  reincorporation  under  her 
sovereignty  of  her  former  provinces  of  Tacna  and 
Arica;  nor  can  the  fact  be  hidden  that — unless  there 
is  a  change  of  course  in  the  Peruvian  policy — we  might 
understand  that  Your  Excellency's  Government  is  in- 
clined to  accept  the  results  that  may  naturally  arise 
from  its  present  position. 

I  renew  to  Your  Excellency  the  assurances  of  my 
highest  and  most  distinguished  consideration. 

Ernesto  Barros. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Peru. 


584 

Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Peru  to  Minister  of 
Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 

[Translation.] 
(Telegram.) 

Lima,  December  31,  1921. 
Mr.  Minister: 

The  attitude  that  Your  Excellency  has  thought  con- 
venient to  assume  on  learning  the  sole  and  concrete 
bases  on  which  it  would  be  possible  for  Peru  to  reach 
a  complete  and  definite  settlement  of  all  the  existing 
difficulties  between  Peru  and  Chile,  forces  me,  in  de- 
fense of  the  privileges  of  right  and  history,  to  correct 
the  unfounded  statements  contained  in  the  telegraphic 
message  of  Your  Excellency  which  I  had  the  honor  to 
receive  yesterday. 

On  answering  the  three  first  notes  from  Your  Ex- 
cellency, it  would  not  be  right  for  me  to  forget  the 
antecedents  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  of  1883,  that  put 
an  end  to  the  War  of  the  Pacific,  begun  more  than 
four  years  before,  the  5th  of  April,  1879.  The  im- 
prints of  that  horrible  struggle  have  not  yet  been 
effaced ;  they  are  preserved  intact  in  the  hearts  of  all 
Peruvians  and,  principally  in  those  of  the  mothers, 
wives  and  sons  of  the  twenty  thousand  compatriots 
that  were  sacrificed  in  the  fields  of  battle  where  even 
the  defenseless  wounded  were  killed,  in  the  ruins  still 
blacked  by  the  smoke,  showing  the  path  of  the  invad- 
ing army  that  sacked  and  burned  towns,  villages  and 
farms ;  in  the  parts  of  our  own  territory  groaning  under 
the  oppression  of  the  conquest,  and  in  the  sufferings 
of  those  thousands  of  Peruvians  that  Chile  expels 
periodically  from  the  soil  and  homes  that  were  theirs, 
as  if  Chile  desired  thereby  to  notify  our  fellow-citizens 
that  the  hostilities  of  a  war  which  legally  ended  thirty- 


585 

seven  years  ago  are  still  being  carried  on.  All  this 
contributes  to  keeping  fresh  in  the  memory  of  Peru 
everything  pertaining  to  the  Treaty  of  Peace  and  each 
one  of  its  stipulations,  in  none  of  which  are  assigned  to 
Chile  the  dominion  and  sovereignty  over  the  provinces 
of  Tacna  and  Arica,  as  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  only 
says  that  the  territory  of  that  province  will  continue 
in  possession  of  Chile  and  subject  to  Chilean  authori- 
ties and  legislation  during  the  period  of  ten  years, 
which  is  contrary  to  the  idea  of  dominion  and  sover- 
eignty which  are,  by  their  nature,  permanent  and  not 
limited  to  a  period  and  to  the  condition  which  Your 
Excellency  yourself  points  out. 

It  is  not  possible  for  me  to  pass  over  the  statement 
of  Your  Excellency  relative  to  the  eagerness  and  sin- 
cerity with  which  it  is  assured  that  your  country  has 
sought  to  reach  an  accord  with  my  country  in  order 
to  agree  upon  the  plebiscitary  bases ;  those  deserving 
purposes  were  not,  undoubtedly,  those  which  made 
your  Government  disregard  its  own  initiative  in  1892 
to  solve  the  question  of  Tacna  and  Arica  after  seven 
months  of  negotiations;  nor  those  which  inspired  the 
stubbornness  of  the  Chilean  negotiators  at  Lima  in 
1893;  nor  the  repudiation  of  the  general  bases  for  a 
definitive  procotol  on  the  plebiscite,  after  having  been 
formally  accepted  by  the  representatives  of  Chile,  at 
the  beginning  of  1894;  nor  the  conditional  transfer  of 
Tacna  and  Arica  to  Bolivia,  agreed  upon  by  Chile  with- 
out any  right  in  1895 ;  nor  the  bold  monetary  exigen- 
cies of  Minister  Lira  in  the  negotiations  which  ended 
the  6th  of  February,  1896 ;  nor  the  delaying  tactics  of 
the  Chilean  Minister  who  succeeded  him  in  his  post 
at  Lima  when  invited  in  1897  to  continue  the  carrying 
out  of  the  negotiations ;  nor  the  proceedings  which  fol- 
lowed the  Protocol  signed  on  April  6,  1898,  for  the  ful- 


586 

fillment  of  the  plebiscite,  which  approved  in  the  same 
year  by  the  Congress  of  Pern  and  the  Senate  of  Chile, 
was  rejected  in  an  ambiguous  way  by  the  Chilean 
Chamber  of  Deputies  in  1901;  nor  the  proposals  that 
one  of  the  predecessors  of  Your  Excellency  made  to 
the  Minister  of  Peru  at  Santiago  in  1908,  for  the  solu- 
tion of  the  problem  of  our  captive  provinces,  regard- 
less of  the  terms  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace ;  nor  the  pro- 
posals which  .were  made  in  the  year  1910  for  the  carry- 
ing out  of  the  plebsicite,  drafted  to  suit  Chilean  pur- 
poses; nor  the  failure  occasioned  by  the  Chilean  Gov-, 
ernment  itself  of  the  negotiations  initiated  simultane- 
ously by  the  two  interested  Governments  in  1912,  all 
of  which  make  us  wonder  at  the  remark  of  Your  Ex- 
cellency that,  notwithstanding  my  Government  having 
recognized  the  existence  of  perfect  accords  on  the  sub- 
ject involved,  it  would  have  indiscriminately  repudi- 
ated them  all. 

A  perfect  accord  was  only  reached  in  the  bases 
agreed  upon  the  26th  of  January,  1894,  rejected  a  few 
months  afterwards  by  Chile,  because  even  the  Protocol 
of  April  16,  1898,  that  almost  came  to  the  point  of 
being  fully  approved,  was  not  so  because  of  the  vote 
passed  by  the  Chilean  Chamber  of  Deputies.  The 
policy  of  the  Government  of  Your  Excellency  with  re- 
gard to  the  unsolved  problems  with  Peru,  is  the  only 
cause  for  the  attitude  of  my  Government  not  yet  being 
fully  appreciated  by  Chile;  the  fact  that  Chile  exer- 
cises transitory  authority  over  the  disputed  territory 
does  not  endow  her  with  the  dominion  and  sovereignty 
which  Peru  keeps  only  for  herself,  nor  can  the  initiative 
begun  by  Your  Excellency  nineteen  days  ago  be  char- 
acterized as  generous. 

The  main  consideration  must  be  given  to  a  solemn 
Treaty  that  gave  Chile  an  enormous  wealth  which  un- 


587 

doubtedly  has  been  the  reason  for  her  power  and  mak- 
ing it  thus  possible  for  her  not  to  fulfill  the  Treaty  in 
those  provisions  that  might  have  been  favorable  to 
Peru ;  thus  our  line  of  conduct  today  could  not  be 
otherwise,  precisely  because  we  are  seeking  a  definite 
settlement  of  all  the  pending  difficulties  and  a  sincere 
reconciliation. 

To  pretend  to  believe  that  there  are  no  difficulties 
other  than  the  carrying  out  of  the  plebiscite  already 
unrealizable  under  bases  abandoned  by  the  Govern- 
ment which  should  have  profited  by  them  is  to  close  the 
eyes  to  the  light  of  reason  and  justice  in  order  to  see 
but  what  is  convenient  for  the  interests  of  the  Chilean 
Government. 

As  far  as  Peru  is  concerned,  it  is  not  only  the  plebi- 
scite provided  for  in  the  Treaty  of  Peace  of  1883  which 
Chile  has  failed  to  fulfill;  and  if  the  Government  of 
Your  Excellency  does  not  believe  this  to  be  true,,  the 
way  to  obtain  an  honorable  and  satisfactory  solution 
is  open ;  by  resorting  to  an  arbitrator  who  may  decide 
whether  the  Treaty  has  been  violated  or  not  and  the 
manner  in  which  such  violations  are  to  be  remedied,  as 
stated  in  my  communication  of  the  23d  of  this  month. 

My  Government  does  not  pretend,  therefore,  that 
the  result  of  the  War  of  the  Pacific  which  ended  more 
than  thirty-seven  years  ago  should  now  be  submitted 
to  arbitration ;  what  we  claim  is  fair  and  easy ;  that  all 
the  infractions  committed  by  Chile  of  the  Treaty  that 
was  imposed  by  force  and  that  was  only  fulfilled  by 
Peru,  should  be  submitted  to  arbitration.  This  is  by 
no  means  the  closing  of  the  door  to  any  agreement.  It 
is,  on  the  contrary  to  seek  one  with  the  open  mind  that 
should  guide  a  sovereign  nation,  assured  of  its  rights. 

Besides,  in  the  high  spirit  of  conciliation  which  has 
actuated  and  will  actuate  my  Government  if  Your  Ex- 


588 

cellency,  moved  by  the  suggestions  of  peace  and  justice, 
should  reconsider  its  illogical  attitude,  we  shall  accept, 
as  heretofore,  the  consequences  coming  from  defend- 
ing the  sacred  cause  of  Peru  before  the  imperialistic 
policy  of  Chile. 

The  course  of  the  policy  of  my  country  cannot  be 
subjected  to  any  change  because  it  is  rooted  in  the 
national  soul  and  it  is  founded  on  law  and  justice. 

I  express  to  you,  Mr.  Minister,  my  highest  and  most 
distinguished  consideration. 

Alberto  Salomon. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile. 


Ambassador  of  the  United  States  in  Chile  to  Minister 
of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 

Santiago,  January  18,  1922. 
No.  36. 

Excellency  : 

I  am  instructed  by  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the 
United  States  to  transmit  to  Your  Excellency  the  fol- 
lowing : 

"The  Government  of  the  United  States,  through 
the  courtesy  of  the  Ambassadors  of  Peru  and 
Chile  in  Washington,  has  been  kept  informed  of 
the  progress  of  their  negotiations  carried  on  di- 
rectly by  telegraph  between  the  two  Governments 
of  Peru  and  Chile  looking  toward  a  settlement  of 
the  long  standing  controversy  with  respect  to  the 
unfulfilled  provisions  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon.  .  It 
has  noted  with  the  greatest  pleasure  and  satisfac- 
tion, the  lofty  spirit  of  conciliation  which  has  ani- 


589 

J 

mated  the  two  Governments,  and  that  as  a  result 

of  these  direct  exchanges  of  views  the  idea  of 
arbitration  of  the  pending  difficulties  is  acceptable 
in  principle  to  both.  It  has  also  taken  note  of  the 
suggestion  that  representatives  of  the  two  Gov- 
ernments be  named  to  meet  in  Washington  with  a 
view  to  finding  the  means  of  settling  the  difficul- 
ties which  have  divided  the  two  countries. 

"Desiring  in  the  interest  of  American  peace 
and  concord  to  assist  in  a  manner  agreeable  to 
both  Governments  concerned  in  finding  a  way  to 
end  this  long  standing  controversy,  the  President 
of  the  United  States  would  be  pleased  to, welcome 
in  Washington  the  representatives  which  the  Gov- 
ernments of  Peru  and  Chile  may  see  fit  to  appoint 
to  the  end  that  such  representatives  may  settle,  if 
happily  it  may  be,  the  existing  difficulties  or  may 
arrange  for  the  settlement  of  them  by  arbitra- 
tion.; ■ 

In  discharging  the  agreeable  duty  of  extending  this 
invitation  to  the  Government  of  Chile,  I  avail  myself 
of  the  opportunity  of  reiterating  to  Your  Excellency 
the  assurances  of  my  most  distinguished  consideration. 

William  Millek  Colliek. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 


Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile  to  Ambassador 
of  the  United  States  in  Chile. 

[Translation.] 

MlNISTEY  OF  FOEEIGN  RELATIONS, 

Santiago,  January  19,  1922. 
Me.  Ambassadoe: 

I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  Your  Ex- 
cellency's    favored    communication    of    yesterday    in 


590 

which  you  were  good  enough  to  transmit  to  me  a  mes- 
sage from  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States, 
whose  expressions  of  deep  international  cordiality  I 
take  pleasure  in  immediately  acknowledging  with 
thanks. 

The  high  inspiration  of  His  Excellency,  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  for  inviting  the  representa- 
tives of  Chile  and  Peru  to  try  to  arrive,  in  Washington, 
at  a  settlement  of  the  long  controversy  still  pending 
over  the  unfulfilled  provisions  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon 
finds  in  my  Government  the  most  cordial  accept- 
ance, and  shows  that  the  Government  of  Your  Excel- 
lency has  fully  appreciated  the  high  spirit  of  inter- 
national conciliation  which  dominated  the  Chilean  ini- 
tiative of  December  12th  last. 

My  Government  will  be  represented  in  Washington, 
as  soon  as  possible,  by  named  plenipotentiaries  who 
will  have  sufficient  instructions  for  arriving  at  an 
agreement  with  the  representatives  from  Peru  as  to 
the  solution  of  the  disputes  to  which  the  invitation  of 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  refers. 

Would  Your  Excellency  convey  to  His  Excellency, 
the  Secretary  of  State,  and  to  His  Excellency,  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  for  his  high  interven- 
tion, the  expressions  of  our  lasting  gratitude  for  the 
great  opportunity  which  he  has  seen  fit  to  offer  us  for 
beginning  direct  conferences  with  Peru,  which  may 
lead  us  to  the  exact  and  loyal  execution  of  the  Treaty 
of  Ancon,  by  suitable  action  of  the  two  Governments 
or  by  other  friendly  means. 

I  am  pleased  to  avail  myself  of  this  opportunity  to 
renew  to  Your  Excellency  the  assurances  of  my  high- 
est consideration. 

Ernesto  Bareos. 
To  His  Excellency, 

The  Ambassador  of  the  United  States  in  Chile. 


591 

Speech  Delivered  by  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Charles 
E.  Hughes,  at  the  Inaugural  Session  of  the 
Chilean-Peruvian  Conference  in  Washington, 
D.  C,  May  15,  1922. 

Excellencies  : 

It  is  with  the  utmost  gratification  that  I  extend  to 
you  a  cordial  welcome  to  this  capital  and  felicitate 
you  upon  this  meeting  for  the  purpose  of  ending  a 
long-standing  controversy.    You  will  find  here,  I  trust, 
an    atmosphere    congenial    to    your    endeavors,    and 
you  can  not  fail  to  be  impressed  with  the  deep  in- 
terest that  we  feel  in  all  that  pertains  to  the  welfare 
of  Chile  and  Peru  and  of  all  our  sister  Republics  in 
Latin  America.     This  meeting  place,  devoted  to  Pan 
American  friendship,  has  the  most  inspiring  memories. 
What  has  been  accomplished  within  these  walls  must 
remain  a  lasting  assurance  that  the  most  difficult  prob- 
lems can  be  solved  when  nations  take  counsel  of  the 
interest  of  peace  and  seek  with  united  purpose  a  bet- 
ter understanding.     Here  we  have  witnessed  the  as- 
tounding spectacle  of  great  naval  powers  voluntarily 
agreeing  to  scrap  a  large  proportion  of  their  capital 
ships  and  to  end  the  most  serious  competition  in  naval 
armament,  thus  relieving  their  peoples  of  an  intoler- 
able burden  and  affording  convincing  proof  of  the  ab- 
sence of  policies  of  aggression.     Here,  nations  espe- 
cially interested  in  the  Far  East,  have  been  able  to 
dispel  apprehension  and  distrust  and  find  through  their 
common  endeavors  a  basis  for  amity  and  cooperation. 
Surely  this  is  an  auspicious  time  to  heal  old  wounds 
and  to  end  whatever  differences  may  exist  in  Latin 
America,  and  there  could  be  no  more  agreeable  harbin- 
ger of  a  better  day  and  of  a  lasting  peace  upon  this 
hemisphere  than  the  convening  of  this  conference  of 


592 

the  representatives  of  the  Republics  of  Chile  and  Peru. 
I  congratulate  you  upon  the  high  purpose  and 
the  noble  and  conciliatory  spirit  which  have  animated 
both  Governments  in  the  approach  of  this  meeting  and 
upon  the  earnest  desire  which  both  have  manifested 
that  through  this  friendly  intercourse  a  mutually  sat- 
isfactory settlement  may  be  found.  Permit  me  to 
express  not  only  the  hope  but  the  firm  conviction 
that  your  zealous  and  well-directed  endeavors  domi- 
nated by  this  friendly  spirit  will  be  crowned  with  com- 
plete success. 

It  may  be  appropriate  for  me  to  repeat  the  terms 
of  the  invitation  extended  by  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  to  the  Governments  of  Chile  and  Peru, 
the  acceptance  of  which  has  led  to  this  conference.  I 
had  the  honor,  on  behalf  of  my  Government,  of  addres- 
sing both  Governments  as  follows: 

The  Government  of  the  United  States,  through 
the  courtesy  of  the  Ambassadors  of  Chile  and  Peru 
in  Washington,  has  been  kept  informed  of  the 
progress  of  the  recent  negotiations  carried  on  di- 
rectly by  telegraph  between  the  Governments  of 
Chile  and  Peru,  looking  toward  a  settlement  of 
the  long  standing  controversy  with  respect  to 
the  unfulfilled  provisions  of  the  Treaty  of  An- 
con.  It  has  noted  with  the  greatest  pleasure  and 
satisfaction  the  lofty  spirit  of  conciliation  which 
has  animated  the  two  Governments,  and  that  as 
the  result  of  these  direct  exchanges  of  views,  the 
idea  of  arbitration  of  the  pending  difficulties  is 
'  acceptable  in  principle  to  both.  It  has  also  taken 
note  of  the  suggestion  that  representatives  of  the 
two  Governments  be  named  to  meet  in  Wash- 
ington with  a  view  to  finding  the  means  of  settling 
the  difficulties  which  have  divided  the  two  coun- 
tries. 


593 

Desiring  in  the  interests  of  American  peace  and 
concord  to  assist,  in  a  manner  agreeable  to  both 
Governments  concerned,  in  finding  a  way  to  end 
this  long-standing  controversy,  the  President  of 
the  United  States  would  be  pleased  to  welcome 
in  Washington  the  representatives  which  the 
Governments  of  Chile  and  Peru  may  see  fit  to 
appoint,  to  the  end  that  such  representatives  may 
settle,  if  happily  it  may  be,  the  existing  difficulties 
or  may  arrange  for  the  settlement  of  them  by 
arbitration. 

You  have  here  the  privilege  and  responsibility  of 
exceptional  opportunity.  Perhaps  no  event  has  ever 
been  contemplated  by  the  American  Eepublics  with 
deeper  interest  and  more  fervent  hope.  The  only  re- 
lief for  a  troubled  world  is  in  resort  to  the  processes 
of  reason  in  lieu  of  those  of  force.  Direct  and  candid 
interchanges,  a  sincere  desire  to  make  an  amicable 
adjustment,  the  promotion  of  mutual  understanding, 
and  the  determination  to  avoid  unnecessary  points 
of  difference  in  order  that  attention  may  be  centered 
upon  what  is  fair  and  practicable — these  are  of  the  es- 
sence of  the  processes  of  reason.  The  pathway  to  an 
enduring  concord  and  to  the  prosperity  of  a  mutual 
helpfulness  lies  open  before  you.  What  is  done  here 
will  have  an  effect  upon  the  security  and  happiness  of 
all  peoples,  inasmuch  as  the  success  of  this  conference 
through  your  agreement  will  not  only  demonstrate 
your  wisdom  and  lofty  conceptions  of  duty,  but  will 
furnish  the  world  with  a  needed  and  inspiring  ex- 
ample of  the  practice  of  peace. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  gives  you 
welcome  and  Godspeed. 


594 

Speech  Delivered  by  Chilean  Delegate,  Sr.  Luis 
Izquierdo,  at  the  Inaugural  Session  of  the  Chilean- 
Peruvian  Conference  in  Washington,  D.  C,  May 
15,  1922. 

Mr.  Secretary: 

On  behalf  of  the  Chilean  Delegation  I  have  the  honor 
to  express  to  you,  Mr.  Secretary,  our  cordial  appreci- 
ation of  the  able  and  eloquent  words  which  we  have 
just  heard.  At  the  same  time  I  desire  to  give  utter- 
ance, with  special  emphasis,  to  the  warm  gratitude  of 
the  Government  of  Chile  for  the  invitation  tendered  to 
Chile  and  Peru  by  His  Excellency  President  Harding 
to  meet  at  Washington,  at  this  opportune  moment,  in 
the  conference  which  to-day  is  holding  its  opening 
session. 

The  Government  of  Chile,  Mr.  Secretary,  lost  no  time 
in  complying  with  the  generous  inspiration  of  your 
Government,  and  I  may  add  that  it  did  this  inspired 
by  a  high  spirit  of  international  conciliation,  which  I 
hope  and  confidently  expect  will  be  reflected  in  our  de- 
liberations. 

The  long-pending  question  which  divides  Peru  and 
Chile  and  which  has  its  roots  in  the  circumstance 
that  the  two  Governments  have  failed  to  agree,  up  to 
the  present  time,  on  the  manner  of  carrying  out  some 
unfulfilled  provisions  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  is  the 
one  question  which  unfavorably  affects  their  political 
and  social  intercourse  as  well  as  their  economic  and 
commercial  relations,  and  which  prevents  these  rela- 
tions from  attaining  that  fuller  development  which, 
under  the  beneficent  influence  of  peace,  the  future 
holds  in  store  for  them. 

To  put  an  end  to  this  pending  question,  through  a 
solution  in  harmony  with  the  precise  and  loyal  fulfill- 


595 

ment  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  is  the  aim  that  the  Presi- 
dent of  Chile  and  his  Government  have  had  in  view: 
first,  when  they  initiated  a  direct  telegraphic  dis- 
cussion with  the  Government  of  Peru  toward  the  close 
of  the  last  year,  and,  second,  when  they  sent  us  here 
with  instructions  to  endeavor  to  eliminate  the  diffi- 
culties standing  in  the  way  of  the  fulfillment  of  the 
Treaty  signed  by  the  two  Republics. 

Convinced  that  our  distinguished  colleagues,  the  re- 
presentatives of  Peru  are  inspired  by  the  same  senti- 
ments that  animate  us,  we  entertain  the  hope — which 
I  am  tempted  to  say  almost  reaches  the  level  of  a  cer- 
tainty— that  the  present  conference,  due  to  the  ini- 
tiative of  the  United  States  will'  reestablish  cordial 
relations  between  the  two  sister  nations  united  by 
reason  of  common  racial  origin,  by  geographical  situ- 
ation, by  community  of  economic  interests,  and  by 
the  glorious  traditions  of  their  early  history. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States,  Mr.  Secretary, 
will  thus  have  rendered,  through  its  high  moral  in- 
fluence, a  new  and  great  service  to  the  movement  for 
an  amicable  settlement  of  international  disputes;  to 
the  furtherance  of  the  spirit  of  Pan  Americanism;  and 
to  the  cause  of  humanity,  justice,  and  peace. 


Speech  of  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile, 
Sr.  Ernesto  Barros,  Delivered  in  the  Session  of 
the  Chamber  of  Deputies  of  June  13, 1922. 

[Translation.] 

Mr.  President,  yesterday,  at  the  request  of  the  Hon- 
orable Deputy  from  Laja,  Sr.  Ruiz,  I  promised  to  ex- 
plain to  this  session  the   status   which   the    Chilean- 


596 

Peruvian  negotiations,  now  being  carried  on  in  Wash- 
ington, have  reached,  and  I  wish  to  fulfill  that  promise, 
prompted  by  the  desire,  which  characterizes  the  whole 
diplomatic  conduct  of  this,  administration,  to  inform 
the  National  Congress  and  the  country  as  to  the  objec- 
tives which  the  Government  is  pursuing  in  regard  to 
'  the  foreign  policy  and  the  means  which  it  has  selected 
to  carry  it  out. 

The  Chilean-Peruvian  Conference  of  Washington, 
Mr.  President,  is  a  result  of  the  diplomatic  discussion 
started  by  the  Government  of  Chile  on  December  12, 
1921,  when,  putting  aside  the  old  obstacles  declared  by 
protocol,  it  addressed  to  the  Government  of  Peru  a 
direct  cablegraphic  invitation  to  undertake  negotia- 
tions which  would  enable  us  to  arrive  at  an  agreement, 
entrusted  by  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  to  the  Chancelleries 
of  both  countries,  for  the  execution  of  its  third  Clause., 

That  diplomatic  discussion  had  much  notoriety  all 
over  America;  had  the  force  of  exposing  the  designs 
of  a  persistent  and  planned  propaganda,  which  at- 
tempted to  mislead  the  world  as  to  our  peaceful  posses- 
sion of  the  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  and  accused 
us  of  fancifully  delaying  the  fulfillment  of  the  condi- 
tion upon  which  Peru  bases  her  hopes  of  reincor- 
porating these  old  Peruvian  provinces  into  her  do- 
minion. 

As  to  the  performance  of  the  condition,  we  could  not 
hope  for  more  than  Ave  have;  on  the  other  hand  Peru, 
by  her  intervention,  might  regain  that  which  it  does 
not  hold  today. 

Nevertheless,  we  were  the  ones  who  put  an  end  to 
the  long  interdiction,  and  resumed  the  negotiations 
which  had  been  interrupted  for  nearly  ten  years, 
guided  by  unselfish  motives  and  with  the  full  intent  of 
bringing  peace  and  harmony  to  the  continent. 

All  the  world  has  seen  the  justice  of  this  initiative. 


597 

The  Government  has  had  the  satisfaction  of  receiving 
declarations  of  approval  of  its  position  from  every- 
where. 

Thus  we  assured  our  international  reputation  which 
had  been  cunningly  undermined  abroad. 

There  is  another  visible  effect  of  the  initiative  of 
December  12th,  which  I  note  from  the  present  negotia- 
tion. 

Taking  the  problem  of  Tacna  and  Arica  from  the 
secret  chambers  of  the  Chancelleries  in  order  to  give 
it  full  publicity,  there  had  to  be  taken  out  a  series  of 
elements  which  complicated  and  confused  it,  in  order 
that  it  might  be  presented  in  terms  which  could  be  ac- 
cepted everywhere,  primarily  by  America  and  then 
by  the  rest  of  the  world. 

And  this  was  how,  in  the  course  of  the  diplomatic 
discussion,  although  a  Constituent  Congress  of  Peru 
had  declared  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  to  be  ineffective  be- 
cause of  age,  and  although  in  official  publications  of 
the  Chancellery  of  Peru,  a  few  days  before,  the  revi- 
sion of  the  Treaty  of  1883  and  the  restitution  of  Tara- 
paca  and  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  without  any  indemnity, 
was  confirmed  to  be  the  objective  of  its  policies,  these 
elements  disappeared  to  be  replaced  by  an  express 
recognition  that  the  Government  of  Peru  was  not  try- 
ing to  change  "the  results  of  the  War  of  the  Pacific, 
which  ended  more  than  thirty-seven  years  ago. ' ' 

In  spite  of  all,  the  agreement  sought  by  the  Govern- 
ment of  Chile  with  so  much  eagerness  could  not  be  ob- 
tained. The  terms  of  the  last  communication  from 
Peru  to  our  Government  went  outside  of  the  bounds 
of  moderation  in  conditions,  which,  to  agree  to  them 
would  have  been  to  encourage  old  animosity,  without 
any  other  purpose  than  to  kindle  passion  in  the  pub- 
lic mind  and  to  still  further  separate  the  two  nations. 


598 

Our  Government  had  nothing  to  hope  from  acts  in- 
flamed with  passion.  It  was  because  of  this  that  it 
refused  to  follow  Peru  along  these  lines. 

The  direct  cablegraphic  discussions  having  been  in- 
terrupted, we  had  the  good  luck  of  seeing  that  the 
President  of  the  United  States  concurred  with  us  in 
that  it  was  necessary  to  seek  a  means  for  fulfilling  the 
unperformed  clauses  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon;  and  on 
his  offering  us  the  city  of  Washington  as  a  seat  of  such 
negotiations,  it  was  very  pleasing  for  us  to  immedi- 
ately accept  such  an  honored  invitation. 

" Would  Your  Excellency  convey,"  I  had  the  oppor- 
tunity to  say  to  His  Excellency,  Mr.  Collier,  on  accept- 
ing the  American  invitation,  "to  His  Excellency  the 
Secretary  of  State,  and  to  His  Excellency  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  for  his  high  intervention, 
the  expressions  of  our  lasting  gratitude  for  the  great 
opportunity  which  he  has  seen  fit  to  offer  us  for  begin- 
ning direct  conferences  with  Peru,  which  may  lead  us 
to  the  exact  and  loyal  execution  of  the  Treaty  of  An- 
con, by  suitable  action  of  the  two  Governments  or,  by 
other  friendly  means." 

When  President  Harding,  in  his  note  of  January 
29th  of  the  present  year,  told  Bolivia  that  the  Confer- 
ences of  Washington  would  be  carried  on  in  order  to 
reach  a  settlement  of-  the  difficulties  growing  out  of  the 
unfulfilled  provisions  of  the  Treaty  of  1883;  and 
when  the  Government  of  Brazil,  in  a  note  to  our  Min- 
ister in  Eio,  dated  February  6,  1922,  described  the  ne- 
gotiations as  designed,  "to  amicably  agree  on  the  prac- 
tical execution  of  certain  parts  of  the  Treaty  of  An- 
con," they  set  forth  that  which  was  later  designated 
by  the  same  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Hughes,  as  "the 
terms  of  the  American  invitation." 


599 

We  did  not  go  to  Washington,  then,  without  know- 
ing what  we  were  going  to;  we  have  not  taken  that 
"jump  into  space,' '  to  which  a  noted  European  pub- 
licist has  so  strongly  objected,  in  the  management  of 
our  foreign  relations. 

Peru,  as  we  did,  accepted  the  invitation ;  perhaps  she 
knows  better  than  we  the  conditions  of  the  American 
invitation,  since  it  is  publicly  known  that  the  naming 
of  her  delegates,  made  nearly  a  month  after  ours,  was 
preceded  by  a  long  diplomatic  negotiation,  whose  secret 
procedure  has  not  been  a  hindrance,  because  it  might 
be  published  a  little  later  in  eloquent  declarations. 

President  Leguia  replied  to  the  Peruvian  students, 
who  asked  the  revision  of  the  Treaty  of  1883,  trans- 
scribing  to  them  a  telegram  from  the  head  of  the  Peru- 
vian Delegation  in  Washington,  Sr.  Meliton  Porras, 
which  in  the  relevant  part  reads  thus:  "We  have  re- 
ceived from  Lima  a  cablegram  sent  by  the  students, 
who  disregard  the  sincere  attitude  of  the  United  States 
and  the  scope  of  the  Conferences.  I  would  try  to  put 
an  end  to  these  declarations  which  only  tend  to  make 
us  lose  the  friendship  of  the  United  States  and  make 
the  recovery  of  Tacna  and  Arica  impossible. ' ' 

On  the  sixth  day  of  this  month,  the  Diario  Oftcial, 
of  Lima,  and  La  Prensa,  official  instruments  of  the 
Government,  concurred  in  their  editorials  that  the 
Executive  should  be  discharged  from  the  responsibili- 
ties inherent  to  the  abandonment  of  the  cause  for  the 
total  revision  of  the  Treaty  of  1883. 

The  latter  of  these  newspapers  says  in  this  regard: 

1 '  The  demand  for  the  total  revision  of  the  Treaty 
could  not  be  favored  in  the  Conferences  due  to 
the  fact  that  Chile  refused  it,  basing  her  refusal 
'  on    the    terms    of    President    Harding's    invita- 
tion.   But   neither   could   Peru   assume   the    re- 


600 

sponsibility  for   the   failure   of  the   Conferences 
which  had  hardly  been  begun.' ' 

I  have  here,  Mr.  President,  some  of  the  statements 
which  make  me  think  that  the  real  scope  of  the  Con- 
ference of  Washington  is  as  well  or  better  known  in 
Lima  than  in  Santiago. 

Soon  we  may  see  even  clearer  manifestations  of  this 
thought.  If  we  must  rejoice  that  the  conditions  of  the 
American  invitation  are  shown  so  clearly  from  the  pre- 
ceding events  in  this  negotiation,  we  must  as  well, 
recognize  that  they  mean  nothing  else  than  the  con- 
secration of  a  permanent  doctrine  upon  which  all  inter- 
national order  rests ;  the  respect  for  treaties  that  have 
been  legally  subscribed. 

A  public  man  such  as  President  Harding  could  not 
do  less,  if  he  takes  into  consideration  that  he  is  re- 
presenting the  generally  accepted  policy  laid  down  by 
him  in  addressing  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Rela- 
tions of  the  American  Senate  in  regard  to  the  Treaty 
of  Versailles,  on  September  10,  1919: 

"The  United  States,  which  never  has  violated 
an  international  obligation,  can  not  allow  all  her 
treaties  in  force  to  be  revised  and  her  policies  and 
honor  to  be  a  subject  for  judicial  proceedings  by 
other  nations." 

In  the  exercise  of  this  rightful  principle,  proclaimed 
in  such  emphatic  terms,  which  is  followed  by  the 
United  States  as  well  as  Chile  and  the  rest,  of  the 
civilized  nations,  we  logically  considered  ourselves  as 
being  in  accord  with  the  universal  understanding. 

On  such  a  basis,  Mr.  President,  we  began  our  nego- 
tiations in  Washington. 

The  Chilean  and  Peruvian  Delegates  having  come 
together  in  conference,  after  several  days  of  informal 


601 

discussion,  our  representatives  submitted  to  those 
from  Peru  four  unselfish  propositions  which  were  sub- 
ject to  the  voluntary  option  of  the  Peruvian  Delega- 
tion. 

Our  policy  continued  in  this  way,  open  and  frank, 
in  favor  of  a  solution. 

Suspecting  what  would  be  the  ultimate  means  with 
which  the  diplomacy  of  Peru  would  fight,  proposals 
especially  designed  to  make  the  difficulties  impossible 
were  selected — the  same  plebiscitary  proposals  as  were 
submitted  by  the  Government  of  Lima  in  1909  and 
1912  to  the  Government  of  Chile. 

Proceeding  thus,  we  reasonably  believed  that  the 
Peruvian  Delegation  could  not  maintain  that  this 
plebiscite  should  have  been  held  in  1894  since  if  that 
attitude  would  be  assumed  by  Sr.  Meliton  Porras  he 
would  find  himself  confronted  by  his  own  plebiscitary 
proposal  of  1909  and  since  it  would  have  been  incon- 
sistent that  a  Government  which  in  1912  proposed  the 
delay  of  the  plebiscite  until  1933,  some  years  later 
would  seek  to  protect  itself,  holding  that  the  plebi- 
scite should  have  been  carried  out  in  1894. 

Nevertheless,  we  regret  that  any  part  of  this  incon- 
sistency has  been  shown. 

I  do  not  wish  to  refer  to  the  first  proposition  of 
Peru,  which  her  Delegation  abandoned  at  the  time  it 
was  made.  I  want  to  consider  the  second  proposal 
by  which  it  was  made  sure  that  Peru  has  yielded  all  she 
could  in  this  regard. 

This  proposal  reads  as  follows: 

"For  the  purpose  of  determining  the  manner 
in  which  the  stipulations  of  Article  III  of  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon  shall  be  fulfilled  there  shall  be 
submitted  to  arbitration  the  question  whether,  in 
the  present  circumstances,  the  plebiscite  shall  or 
shall  not  be  held. 


602 

"If  it  is  not  to  be  held,  to  which  country  shall 
belong  the  definitive  dominion  over  Tacna  and 
Arica  and  under  what  conditions. 

"If  it  is  to  be  held,  under  what  conditions  shall 
the  plebiscite  take  place." 

In  order  to  bring  the  Peruvian  proposal  within  "the 
terms  of  the  American  invitation,"  they  had  to  ex- 
pressly record  the  purpose  of  complying  with  the  third 
Clause  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon. 

It  is  hard  to  reconcile  this  purpose  with  the  com- 
mitting of  a  point  to  arbitration  that  subjects  the  hold- 
ing of  the  plebiscite  provided  for  in  the  Treaty 
of  1883  to  possible  elimination,  but  the  same  in- 
consistency of  the  premise  with  the  proposition 
which  follows  it,  make  evident  the  great  efforts  which 
the  Peruvian  Delegates  have  had  to  make  in  order  to 
reconcile  these  two  incompatible  terms:  The  con- 
ditions of  the  invitation  and  the  desires  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  Peru  to  revise  the  Treaty. 

It  is  no  great  problem  to  know  what  an  arbitrator 
would  decide  on  being  given  the  question  as  to 
whether  or  not,  in  order  to  fulfill  the  Treaty  of  Ancon, 
the  plebiscite  must  be  held,  because  if  the  literal  terms 
of  the  pact  should  cause  any  doubt,  which  does 
not  seem  likely,  the  interpretation  which  the  parties 
have  given  to  this  provision  has  been  the  same  during 
the  passing  of  more  than  thirty  years,  and  it  is  well 
known  that  the  supreme  rule  for  interpretation  is  the 
understanding  which  the  parties  have  given  to  their 
agreements. 

And  we  showed  that  understanding  by  invoking  a 
Peruvian  proposal  for  a  plebiscite  after  the  year  1894, 
and  by  asking  for  the  proposal  of  the  year  1912  in 
which  the  agreement  of  the  two  Governments  was 
reached  and  in  which  Peru  suggested  the  postpone- 
ment of  the  plebiscite  until  1933. 


603 

The  ex-President  of  Peru,  His  Excellency  Sr.  Bil- 
linghurst,  in  a  secret  message  to  the  Peruvian  Con- 
gress in  support  of  the  Huneeus-Valera  agreement, 
gave  the  reasons,  to  which  the  Peruvian  proposal 
yields,  for  deferring  the  plebiscite ;  reasons  which  are 
entirely  applicable  to  the  hindrances  which  all  our 
efforts  for  arriving  at  an  agreement  for  the  carrying 
out  of  the  third  Clause  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  have 
met  in  Lima: 

"  Would  the  immediate  carrying  out  of  the 
plebiscite  be  suitable  for  Peru!"  President  Bil- 
linghurst  asks  himself.  "To  indorse  this  statement 
would  mean  to  take  the  daring  resolution  of 
legalizing  without  advantage  and  in  a  precipitate 
and  inconceivable  manner  the  occupation  by 
Chile.  To  believe  this,  it  is  only  necessary  to  look 
at  it  with  open  eyes  and  clear  conscience. ' ' 

But  there  is  still  one  more  reason  why  there  should 
be  no  discussion  as  to  whether  the  plebiscite  shall  be 
held  or  not. 

For  a  long  time  back  the  disposition  of  territory 
has  ceased  to  be  made  by  the  fanciful  action  of  the 
Governments ;  the  will  of  the  inhabitants  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  must  be  sought  in  order  to  decide  the  definite 
nationality  which  belongs  to  them. 

As  we  stated  in  the  Chilean  proposal  of  June  7th,  in 
the  case  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  universal  and  positive 
justice  and  right,  international  law  and  custom,  and 
the  Treaty  of  Peace  and  Friendship  of  1883,  whose  in- 
tegral efficacy  and  respect  were  the  basis  of  our  as- 
sembling in  Washington — agree  that  the  plebiscite 
should  be  held. 

The  same  head  of  the  Peruvian  Delegation,  in  a 
statement  to  the  press  with  regard  to  certain  Bolivian 


604 

ideas  as  to  the  purchase  of  the  port  of  Arica,  con- 
curred in  our  doctrine  in  the  following  terms: 

"To  undertake  to  trade  people  and  territories 
would  be  at  the  same  time,  a  monstrosity  and  an 
immorality.  It  is  not  possible  to  take  territories 
which  belong  to  one  country  and  give  them  to  an- 
other because  the  latter  may  want  them.  It  is  not 
possible  to  disregard  the  desires  of  the  inhabi- 
tants and  their  historic  rights.  Such  a  theory  is 
not  in  accord  with  North-American  principles, 
nor  with  the  ideals  which  were  defended  in  the 
World  War,  which  today  constitute  the  essence  of 
international  law. ' ' 

Taking  the  statements  of  the  head  of  the  Delega- 
tion of  Peru  in  Washington,  we  can  say,  in  order  to 
reject  the  Peruvian  claim,  that  the  ideals  defended  in 
the  war,  terminated  by  a  Treaty  in  which  many  pro- 
posed plebiscites  were  provided  for,  prevent  conflict 
with  this  procedure  that  is  now  an  essential  part  of 
international  law. 

For  these  reasons  we  consider  that  the  plebiscite 
is  the  only  solution  prescribed  in  the  Treaty  of  1883; 
it  is  the  only  solution  which  is  in  accordance  with 
the  modern  principles  of  free  determination  by  the 
people;  and  it  is  the  only  way  for  obtaining  an  agree- 
ment which  would  guide  Chile  and  Peru,  through 
paths  of  brotherhood,  toward  the  attainment  of  their 
great  destinies. 

The  Honorable  Chamber  of  Deputies  is  acquainted 
with  the  proposal  presented  by  the  Chilean  Delegates 
in  reply  to  the  Peruvian  proposition  of  May  27th;  it 
is  a  brief  summary  of  the  reasons  which  I  have  just 
explained. 

This  proposal,  then,  was  rejected  by  the  Delegation 
from  Peru,  without  further  examination,  in  view  of 


605 

the  reasons  stated  in  an  official  declaration,  which  is 
literally  as  follows: 

' '  The  Peruvian  Delegation,  though  instantly  ac- 
cepting the  naming  of  an  arbitrator,  regretted 
that  the  Chilean  Delegation  has  not  made  a  favor- 
able response  to  its  conciliatory  reply,  in  which 
the  expectations  of  both  countries  were  con- 
sidered, and  it  deemed  that  the  Chilean  Delega- 
tion maintains  a  point  of  view  which  does  not 
show  harmony  or  justice,  since  its  assertions  show 
the  desire  to  incidentally  put  aside  the  present 
circumstances  and  the  consequences  of  the  acts 
of  its  authorities  during  the  twenty-eight  years 
which  have  passed  since  the  time  when  the  plebi- 
scite should  have  been  held,  and  a  disregard  for 
the  right  of  Peru  to  ask  that  an  impartial  judge 
should  fully  examine  the  case." 

The  assertion  in  this  official  Peruvian  article  is 
not  accurate. 

We  have  never  refused  to  submit  our  actions  in 
Tacna  and  Arica  since  1894  to  an  arbitrator;  rather  on 
the  contrary,  we  will  agree,  with  pleasure,  to  having 
an  arbitrator  take  notice  of  such  a  false  denouncement 
made  by  the  Government  of  Peru,  so  that  there  may 
again  be  shown  the  kind  of  tactics  with  which  it  has 
seen  fit  to  attack  us. 

We  have  not  made  an  investigation  of  those  actions 
because  I  can  say  without  boasting  that  our  occupa- 
tion of  Tacna  and  Arica,  when  compared  with  the  oc- 
cupation of  any  other  region  that  may  have  been  sub- 
mitted to  a  plebiscite — for  instance  Eupen  and  Mal- 
medy,.  upper  Silesia,  the  Saar  Valley,  etc. — will  show 
that  nowhere  have  the  authorities  been  more  benevo- 
lent, respectful,  and  accommodating.  The  plan  for 
liberty  has  nowhere  been  so  complete,  and  the  consti- 


606 

tutional  guarantees  have  been  executed  with  great 
equality  toward  all  the  inhabitants. 

It  is  evident  that  with  the  passing  of  time  our  na- 
tionalizing acts  in  those  territories  have  been  greatly 
aiding  that  region.  The  establishment  of  industries, 
the  construction  of  railways,  the  betterment  of  the 
public  service,  and  careful  attention  by  the  authori- 
ties, have  all  contributed  to  the  fact  that  from  day 
to  day  those  territories  were  becoming  more  Chilean. 

On  speaking  of  our  action  since  1894,  is  it  by  chance 
claimed  that  we  did  not  have  the  right  to  help  those 
territories  advance — that  we  were  obligated  to  keep 
them  in  the  state  of  depression  and  stagnation  in 
which  we  received  them? 

We  are  not  going  to  oppose  an  examination  of  our 
activities  in  Tacna  and  Arica  since  1894;  but  on 
agreeing  to  it  we  must  start  from  an  absolutely 
sure  footing  that  the  examination  will  not  have 
any  consequences  other  than  the  adoption  of  measures 
by  which  the  plebiscite  bases  may  seek  the  true  dec- 
laration of  the  will  of  the  inhabitants. 

If  we  have  driven  Peruvians  out,  the  arbitrator,  ac- 
cording to  our  offer,  could  take  steps  in  order  that 
those  Peruvians  might  return  to  the  country  to  take 
part  in  the  voting;  if  we  have  persecuted  the  Peru- 
vian inhabitants  of  those  territories  the  arbitrator 
could  take  steps  in  order  that  this  might  not  occur; 
but  in  no  event  could  we  agree  that  the  examination 
of  those  activities  could  result  in  the  non-execution  of 
the  Treaty  of  1883. 

The  proposal  made  on  the  7th  of  June  having  been 
rejected  by  the  Peruvian  Delegation,  the  " deadlock' ' 
arose  in  the  Washington  Conferences.  In  the  good 
spirit  which  both  Delegations  have  had  from  the  be- 
ginning, it  was  believed  that  this  deadlock  which  has 


607 

been  reached  could  be  overcome  by  some  conciliatory 
proposition  acceptable  to  both  Delegations. 

Although,  since  the  7th  of  this  month  new  official 
meetings  have  not  been  held,  this  does  not  mean  the 
negotiations  have  ended.  The  discussions  have  con- 
tinued informally  and  at  the  present  time  the  Govern- 
ment cherishes  the  hope  that  a  proposal,  which  falls 
within  the  instructions  of  the  Delegates,  and  which 
would  mean  the  resuming  of  the  official  sessions  which 
have  been  interrupted,  may  be  received  for  its  approval. 

Whatever  may  be  the  agreement  reached  in  Wash- 
ington between  the  Chilean  and  Peruvian  Delegates, 
the  Government  will  submit  it  to  the  National  Con- 
gress, in  order  that  is  may  give  its  official  sanction, 
and  it  can  be  said  that  a  proposition  is  being  discussed 
in  which  are  embodied  the  most  representative  ideals 
of  the  Republic. 

Nevertheless  we  are  somewhat  alarmed  at  the  great 
political  agitation  that  exists  in  Peru  at  the  present 
time,  directing  its  powerful  forces  against  its  own 
negotiators  in  Washington. 

The  history  of  our  negotiations  with  Peru  already 
shows  us  more  than  one  instance  in  which  our  efforts 
to  reach  a  solution  succeeded  in  producing  terms  of 
agreement  with  the  gentlemen  from  the  Government 
of  Peru,  but  a  short  time  later  those  agreements  had  to 
be  abandoned  because  of  a  violent  and  unfortunate 
crisis  of  the  Government  negotiators. 

Happily,  the  well-known  influence  which  the  present 
President  of  Peru  has  over  his  people  leads  us  to  be- 
lieve that  it  is  sufficient  to  control  the  chauvinistic  ex- 
citement and  to  command  respect  for  the  public  trust 
solemnly  pledged. 

Other  prior  events  make  one  think  that  the  arrange- 
ment which  might  be  reached  in  Washington  will  be 


608 

accompanied  by  unknown  and  secret  factors,  such  as 
those  which  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Bo- 
livia, Sr.  Fernandez  Alonso  has  revealed  on  publishing 
accounts  of  happenings  which  show  the  existence  of 
a  secret  pact  between  Peru  and  Bolivia,  which  was 
made  in  disregard  of  the  invitation  of  the  United 
States,  for  assisting,  in  Washington,  the  Bolivian  de- 
sires for  a  port  on  the  Pacific. 

The  Honorable  Chamber  of  Duputies  is  acquainted 
with  the  result  of  this  secret  pact.  ' 

Aside  from  the  irregularity  this  might  signify,  we 
would  welcome  these  happenings — the  attempted  inclu- 
sion of  certain  elements  of  disturbance  in  the  confer- 
ences which  were  assembled  under  certain  conditions — 
because  they  are  clearly  demonstrating,  as  the  Bolivian 
Government  seems  to  understand  now,  that  it  is  only 
within  a  mutual  understanding  and  in  accordance  with 
a  reciprocal  agreement  with  Chile  that  it  could  further 
its  aspirations  which  are  so  well  known. 

We  went  to  Washington  to  negotiate  in  absolute 
good  faith,  inspired  by  the  highest  spirit  of  American 
brotherhood  and  by  the  firm  purpose  not  to  evade 
reasonable  sacrifices  in  order  to  reach  an  agreement 
in  the  old  controversy  over  which  we  are  divided  with 
Peru. 

The  acceptance  of  the  American  invitation  juridically 
binding  both  Chile  and  Peru,  and  also  the  express  decla- 
ration of  the  Peruvian  Delegation  in  regard  to  its  pur- 
pose to  comply  with  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon, 
place  the  negotiations  in  such  a  status  that  reasonable 
solutions  will  doubtless  be  reached. 

The  Government  confidently  awaits  a  favorable  re- 
sult ;  it  has  implicit  faith  in  the  judgment  and  ability  of 
its  Delegates  in  Washington  with  whom  it  has  perfectly 
agreed  during  the  entire  conferences,  and  cherishes 


609 

the  firm  hope  that,  having  right  and  justice  in  our 
favor,  the  definite  solutions  will  have  to  be  those 
hoped  for  by  the  national  sentiment. 


Proceedings  of  the  Chilean-Peruvian  Conference  Held 
in  Washington,  D.  C,  Dated  on  June  30, 1922. 

[Translation.] 

The  Delegates  Plenipotentiary  of  Chile  and  Peru, 
attended  by  the  Counselors  and  Secretaries  of  the  Del- 
egations, having  met  on  the  appointed  day,  it  was 
agreed  that  they  should  all  sign  a  joint  written  record 
of  the  subjects  considered  in  the  several  meetings  here- 
tofore held. 

The  Delegate  of  Chile,  Senor  Aldunate,  pointed  out 
that,  inasmuch  as  the  Chilean  Government  had  initi- 
ated the  negotiations  then  in  progress,  the  representa- 
tives of  Chile  did  not  find  it  inappropriate  to  have 
taken  the  initiative  in  this  meeting. 

He  expressed  the  view  that,  whatever  may  have  been 
our  differences  of  opinion,  a  great  step  forward  in  the 
settlement  of  the  difficulties  between  Peru  and  Chile 
was  marked  by  what  had  taken  place  since  the  telegram 
of  December  12. 

The  interchange  of  telegraphic  correspondence 
showed  clearly  the  wish  of  the  two  countries  to  reach 
agreement — a  wish  manifested  in  numerous  declara- 
tions, particularly  in  the  statements  made  formally  at 
the  opening  session  of  the  Conference. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  had  believed 
that  this  desired  agreement  is  to  be  sought  in  the  ful- 
fillment of  those  parts  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  that  had 
not  yet  been  carried  out,  and  had  extended  invitations 
to  us  to  come  to  Washington  with  a  view  to  eliminate 


610 

the  points  of  disagreement  between  the  two  nations 
with  respect  to  the  manner  of  fulfilling  those  parts  of 
the  Treaty. 

The  Chilean  Delegates  were  disposed  to  express 
their  ideas  on  the  subject  in  detail,  and  they  would  be 
glad  to  have  the  Delegates  of  Peru  state,  in  general 
terms,  their  views  regarding  the  way  the  desired  end 
might  be  achieved,  that  is,  how  the  unfulfilled  stipula- 
tions of  the  Treaty  might  be  given  effect. 

Doctor  Porras  made  clear  that  the  Delegation  of 
Peru  had  come  to  this  Conference  with  the  intention  of 
contributing  as  decisively  as  possible  to  the  realization 
of  the  lofty  object  of  President  Harding,  at  whose  in- 
stance it  was  held.  He  was  of  the  belief  that  an  under- 
standing between  the  two  countries  would  not  be  diffi- 
cult to  bring  about,  if  there  did  in  fact  exist  a  wish  to 
be  guided  by  the  inspiration  of  justice — which  alone 
may  serve  as  the  basis  for  the  moral  greatness  of  na- 
tions. 

He  went  on  to  add  that  he  had  no  reason  to  refrain 
from  pointing  out  the  measures  by  which  the  agree- 
ment sought  could  be  attained.  He  wished,  before- 
hand, to  be  pardoned  for  any  word  or  inference  that 
might  hurt  the  feelings  of  the  Delegates  of  Chile,  in- 
asmuch as  he  contemplated  speaking  with  entire 
frankness. 

Thereupon  developing  the  discussions  suggested  by 
Sefior  Aldunate,  he  set  forth  that  the  only  reasonable 
and  just  solution  consisted  in  the  complete  restoration 
of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica  to  Peru,  inas- 
much as  more  than  twenty-eight  years  had  passed  since 
the  day  when  the  term  of  ten  years,  agreed  upon  at 
Ancon,  had  expired,  and  consequently,  the  occupation 
since  March  28,  1894,  was  unjustified.  The  substantial 
provision  of  the  Treaty  was  that  the  territory  in  ques- 


611 

tion  should  belong  to  the  country  which  would  have  a 
majority  at  the  termination  of  the  period.  As  it  is 
well  known  and  capable  of  proof  on  testimony  of  au- 
thoritative Chilean  sources  that  Peru  had  at  that  time, 
and  to  spare,  the  required  majority,  the  assertion  was 
warranted  that  the  plebiscite  had  virtually  taken  place, 
and  its  result  had  constituted  a  victory  for  Peru. 

The  failure  to  hold  the  plebiscite  was  due  not  to 
Peru,  but  to  Chile.  This  is  a  truth  to  be  deduced  from 
the  history  of  the  conflict  in  the  eyes  of  any  impartial 
observer.  It  could  not  be  otherwise  since  Peru,  for 
sentimental  reasons,  was  interested  in  recovering  her 
provinces,  while  no  one.  could  be  blind  to  the  fact  that 
Peru  was  in  no  position  to  impose  her  will  in  this  con- 
nection. Chile,  on  the  other  hand,  had  the  means  to 
carry  out  her  wishes,  and  her  authorities  had  made  the 
agreement  regarding  the  plebiscite  impossible  of  ef- 
fect, by  various  expedients,  at  the  same  time  carrying 
'out  the  plan  of  violently  expelling  the  Peruvian  inhabi- 
tants from  the  provinces  and  replacing  them  with 
Chilean  elements  so  as  to  constitute  the  electoral  ma- 
jority to  act  at  the  suitable  moment. 

By  reason  of  this  policy,  things  had  come  to  such 
a  pass  that  the  carrying  out  of  the  plebiscite  could  not 
be  permitted.  If  it  were  today  to  be  accepted  it  could 
only  signify,  in  view  of  the  serious  events  that  had 
occurred,  yielding  in  the  face  of  violence. 

Consequently,  the  only  admissible  solution  at  this 
time  precisely  in  rendering  effective  the  third  Clause 
of  the  Treaty  already  mentioned,  was  to  defer  to  the 
will  of  the  provinces  as  it  was  known  to  have  been  in 
1894,  and  to  return  to  Peru  without  further  delay  the 
territory  that  she  ceded  only  temporarily. 

Senor  Aldunate  remarked  that  the  Chilean  Delega- 
tion would  be  actuated  by   the    same    courtesy   with 


612 

which  Sefior  Porras  had  offered  to  take  up  the  ques- 
tions to  be  dealt  with  in  this  Conference,  and  would 
not  be  led  away  from  the  inspiration  of  justice,  which 
is  intimately  bound  up  with  the  good  faith  of  treaties 
that  are  the  source  of  right  and  obligations  for  the  na- 
tions which  sign  them. 

The  events  that  had  recently  convulsed  the  world 
had  once  more  proved  that  international  order  rests 
upon  the  observance  of  the  provisions  of  treaties. 

Sefior  Aldunate  was  not  of  the  view  of  Senor  Porras 
in  so  far  as  related  to  that  which  constituted  the  foun- 
dation of  his  argument,  namely,  that  Article  III  of  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon  had  provided  that  the  plebiscite  to  de- 
cide the  future  lot  of  Tacna  and  Arica  must  necessarily 
have  been  carried  out  within  the  period  of  ten  years 
reckoned  from  the  date  of  the  Treaty.  This  instru- 
ment, on  the  contrary,  provided  that  the  plebiscite  was 
to  be  held  after  the  ten  years  had  expired,  and  on  the 
basis  of  conditions  set  forth  in  a  protocol  to  be  agreed 
to  by  both  parties.  There  had  been  no  period  fixed 
for  the  conclusion  of  this  protocol.  It  was  evident 
that  within  the  ten  years  neither  party  could  demand 
the  holding  of  the  plebiscite;  but  it  was  not  evident 
that,  after  the  ten  years,  the  plebiscite  could  not  be 
held. 

The  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica  were  exclusively 
Peruvian  when  the  War  of  the  Pacific  ended,  at  which 
time  Chile  demanded  them  for  the  protection  of  the 
nitrate  region  line  south  of  them,  and  as  a  safeguard 
of  her  boundaries. 

Peru  agreed  to  surrender  to  Chile  the  possession 
and  sovereignty  of  these  territories  for  ten  years, 
maintaining  that  after  this  period,  a  plebiscite  should 
determine,  by  popular  vote,  whether  the  territory  was 
to  remain  definitely  under  Chilean  control,  or  to  con- 


613 

tinue  part  of  Peruvian  territory.  The  plebiscite  was 
to  be  held  in  accordance  with  provisions  agreed  to  in 
a  special  protocol. 

In  view  of  these  stipulations,  the  reversion  of  the 
provinces  to  the  possession  and  sovereignty  of  Peru 
had  not  depended,  nor  did  it  now  depend,  on  the  mere 
lapse  of  ten  years,  but  on  the  conditions  that  Peru 
should  win  in  a  plebiscite  held  after  the  ten  years  in 
question,  in  accordance  with  the  protocol  which,  as 
yet,  it  had  not  been  possible  to  formulate. 

The  surrender  of  the  two  provinces  to  Chile,  in  such 
circumstances,  amounted  to  giving  the  latter  country 
a  free  option  and  the  fullest  opportunity  to  make 
them  Chilean  in  character. 

The  proposal  of  Seiior  Porras  was  equivalent  to  a 
claim  that  the  plebiscite  be  presumed  to  have  been 
held  in  1894,  and  that  Peru  be  presumed  to  have  won 
at  that  time.  This  reasoning  apparently  respected  the 
provisions  of  the  Treaty  while,  in  fact,  it  did  violence 
to  their  very  foundation. 

Nor  could  Chile  accept  any  responsibility  which  it 
might  be  desired  to  attribute  to  her  for  the  fact  that 
up  to  the  present  time  there  had  been  no  agreement 
on  the  protocol  regarding  the  plebiscite.  If  two  per- 
sons do  not  agree  on  a  contract,  or  two  nations  on  a 
treaty,  neither  is  responsible  for  the  failure  to  agree. 
Such  was  the  opinion  of  Peru  whenever  after  1894  she 
had  carried  on  negotiations  with  Chile  regarding  the 
basis  of  the  plebiscite.  Senor  Aldunate  referred  to 
the  Billinghurst-Latorre  agreement  of  1898,  the  Chil- 
ean-Peruvian exchange  of  proposals  in  1909,  and  the 
Valera-Huneeus  agreement  of  1912,  initiated  by  Peru, 
wherein  the  latter  country  proposed  that  the  plebiscite 
take  place  forty  years  after  the  date  mentioned  by 
Senor  Porras. 


616 

when  one  of  the  parties  has  force  at  his  command,  and, 
moreover,  is  in  possession  of  the  disputed  thing.  Very 
well,  could  it  be  said,  that  no  one  is  to  blame,  when  he 
who  is  in  the  possession  of  the  disputed  thing,  and  has 
force  at  his  command,  refuses  to  submit  to  an  impar- 
tial judge  the  differences  of  opinion  that  have  pre- 
vented the  solution?  Evidently  not;  and  this  was  the 
case  before  them.  Each  of  the  pages  of  our  long  liti- 
gation was  an  eloquent  demonstration  of  the  intention 
of  Chile  to  prevent  a  vote  until  the  moment  when  she 
would  find  circumstances  favorable. 

It  could  not  be  said  that  Chile  had  refused  to  accept 
arbitration  because  of  the  conditions  of  the  plebiscite 
constituted  an  essential  act  of  sovereignty.  The  regu- 
lation of  the  manner  in  which  a  thing  is  to  be  done, 
however  weighty  the  act  itself  may  be,  has  no  char- 
acter such  as  was  implied.  If  this  were  true  in  the 
case  of  Peru,  so  much  the  more  was  it  in  the  case  of 
Chile  which  has  not  had  any  portion  of  her  territory 
compromised. 

Senor  Porras  went  on  to  declare  that  there  was 
ground  for  satisfaction  that  Senor  Izquierdo  could 
find  it  easy  now  to  determine  the  points  of  difference 
to  be  submitted  to  the  decision  of  the  arbitrator.  It 
was  to  be  regretted  that  such  a  notion  had  not  pre- 
vailed on  other  occasions  when  the  plebiscite  could 
have  occurred,  that  is  to  say,  when  the  measures 
adopted  to  render  it  nugatory  had  not  assumed  the  ex- 
tent and  importance  that  now  characterized  them. 

If  these  measures  had  not  had  all  the  success  that 
the  occupying  country  expected,  that  was  no  rea- 
son to  believe  baseless  the  right  Peru  now  claims.  The 
Peruvian  Delegation  thought  that  the  many  years  that 
had  elapsed  since  March,  1894,  and  the  substantial 
modification  of  conditions  in  Tacna  and  Arica  by  rea- 


617 

son  of  the  policy  there  pursued  by  the  Chilean  authori- 
ties obliged  us  not  to  depart  from  the  sole  and  real  ob- 
ject of  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  namely, 
that  the  provinces  should  belong  to  the  country  which 
might  have  the  majority  of  support  at  the  date  indi- 
cated; and  it  was  well  known  from  assertions  beyond 
cavil  and  never  denied  that  the  majority  of  that  date 
favored  Peru. 

The  assertion  that  the  period  of  ten  years  had  been 
fixed  for  the  occupation,  but  none  had  been  determined 
for  the  regulation  of  the  plebiscite  and  that  conse- 
quently the  latter  could  occur  thirty,  forty,  or  one 
hundred  years  later,  was  tantamount  to  imagining  that 
the  negotiators  gave  Chile  the  right  to  lengthen  four- 
fold, five-fold,  or  ten-fold  the  term  of  occupation 
wholly  and  exclusively  of  her  own  will. 

But  they  had  not  thought  for  a  moment  of  granting 
Chile  any  such  faculty.  The  intention  of  the  negotia- 
tions was  that  the  plebiscite  should  occur  immediately 
after  the  conclusion  of  the  ten  years ;  and  such  was  the 
understanding  of  Peru  when,  in  1892,  that  is,  at  an  op- 
portune time,  she  took  steps  although  without  any  re- 
sult to  bring  about  the  agreement  that  the  case  re- 
quired. 

The  fact  that  Peru  had  discussed,  some  years  back, 
but  subsequent  to  1894,  the  conditions  upon  which  the 
plebiscite  might  be  based  never  signified  any  surrender 
of  her  rights  nor  any  justification  of  the  events  that 
had  previously  transpired.  Peru,  in  an  effort  to  at- 
tain a  just  and  reasonable  agreement,  had  voluntarily 
overlooked  them.  Unfortunately,  this  yielding  for  the 
moment  on  certain  conditions  never  produced  the  ex- 
pected solution.  The  Valera-Huneeus  negotiations 
had,  as  their  point  of  departure,  to  be  sure,  the  post- 
ponement of  the  plebiscite;  but  for  that  very  reason 


616 

when  one  of  the  parties  has  force  at  his  command,  and, 
moreover,  is  in  possession  of  the  disputed  thing.  Very 
well,  could  it  be  said,  that  no  one  is  to  blame,  when  he 
who  is  in  the  possession  of  the  disputed  thing,  and  has 
force  at  his  command,  refuses  to  submit  to  an  impar- 
tial judge  the  differences  of  opinion  that  have  pre- 
vented the  solution?  Evidently  not;  and  this  was  the 
case  before  them.  Each  of  the  pages  of  our  long  liti- 
gation was  an  eloquent  demonstration  of  the  intention 
of  Chile  to  prevent  a  vote  until  the  moment  when  she 
would  find  circumstances  favorable. 

It  could  not  be  said  that  Chile  had  refused  to  accept 
arbitration  because  of  the  conditions  of  the  plebiscite 
constituted  an  essential  act  of  sovereignty.  The  regu- 
lation of  the  manner  in  which  a  thing  is  to  be  done, 
however  weighty  the  act  itself  may  be,  has  no  char- 
acter such  as  was  implied.  If  this  were  true  in  the 
case  of  Peru,  so  much  the  more  was  it  in  the  case  of 
Chile  which  has  not  had  any  portion  of  her  territory 
compromised. 

Senor  Porras  went  on  to  declare  that  there  was 
ground  for  satisfaction  that  Senor  Izquierdo  could 
find  it  easy  now  to  determine  the  points  of  difference 
to  be  submitted  to  the  decision  of  the  arbitrator.  It 
was  to  be  regretted  that  such  a  notion  had  not  pre- 
vailed on  other  occasions  when  the  plebiscite  could 
have  occurred,  that  is  to  say,  when  the  measures 
adopted  to  render  it  nugatory  had  not  assumed  the  ex- 
tent and  importance  that  now  characterized  them. 

If  these  measures  had  not  had  all  the  success  that 
the  occupying  country  expected,  that  was  no  rea- 
son to  believe  baseless  the  right  Peru  now  claims.  The 
Peruvian  Delegation  thought  that  the  many  years  that 
had  elapsed  since  March,  1894,  and  the  substantial 
modification  of  conditions  in  Tacna  and  Arica  by  rea- 


617 

son  of  the  policy  there  pursued  by  the  Chilean  authori- 
ties obliged  us  not  to  depart  from  the  sole  and  real  ob- 
ject of  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  namely, 
that  the  provinces  should  belong  to  the  country  which 
might  have  the  majority  of  support  at  the  date  indi- 
cated; and  it  was  well  known  from  assertions  beyond 
cavil  and  never  denied  that  the  majority  of  that  date 
favored  Peru. 

The  assertion  that  the  period  of  ten  years  had  been 
fixed  for  the  occupation,  but  none  had  been  determined 
for  the  regulation  of  the  plebiscite  and  that  conse- 
quently the  latter  could  occur  thirty,  forty,  or  one 
hundred  years  later,  was  tantamount  to  imagining  that 
the  negotiators  gave  Chile  the  right  to  lengthen  four- 
fold, five-fold,  or  ten-fold  the  term  of  occupation 
wholly  and  exclusively  of  her  own  will. 

But  they  had  not  thought  for  a  moment  of  granting 
Chile  any  such  faculty.  The  intention  of  the  negotia- 
tions was  that  the  plebiscite  should  occur  immediately 
after  the  conclusion  of  the  ten  years ;  and  such  was  the 
understanding  of  Peru  when,  in  1892,  that  is,  at  an  op- 
portune time,  she  took  steps  although  without  any  re- 
sult to  bring  about  the  agreement  that  the  case  re- 
quired. 

The  fact  that  Peru  had  discussed,  some  years  back, 
but  subsequent  to  1894,  the  conditions  upon  which  the 
plebiscite  might  be  based  never  signified  any  surrender 
of  her  rights  nor  any  justification  of  the  events  that 
had  previously  transpired.  Peru,  in  an  effort  to  at- 
tain a  just  and  reasonable  agreement,  had  voluntarily 
overlooked  them.  Unfortunately,  this  yielding  for  the 
moment  on  certain  conditions  never  produced  the  ex- 
pected solution.  The  Valera-Huneeus  negotiations 
had,  as  their  point  of  departure,  to  be  sure,  the  post- 
ponement of  the  plebiscite;  but  for  that  very  reason 


618 

this  plan  did  not  enjoy  the  approval  of  the  Peruvian 
people.  Its  aim  was  to  avoid  at  any  cost  the  persecu- 
tion of  which  the  people  of  Tacna  and  Arica  were  vic- 
tims, and  which  were  year  by  year  growing  worse, 
making  more  dangerous  the  international  complications 
that  Chile  would  be  in  a  position  to  provoke,  to  the 
consequent  risk  of  the  nation's  peace.  The  Executive 
of  Peru  believed  it  necessary  to  strengthen  the  country 
and  put  it  in  a  position  to  make  headway  effectively  in 
the  solution  of  all  its  pending  problems.  Nevertheless, 
the  plan  was  not  accepted  by  public  opinion  for  the 
reason  indicated,  in  contrast  to  the  Protocol  of  1898 
which  was  approved  by  the  Congress  of  Peru  and 
which  indeed  enjoyed  popular  support  because  it 
put  an  end,  and  on  acceptable  terms,  to  the  postpone- 
ment of  the  solution  by  plebiscite. 

Neither  at  that  time  nor  at  any  other  had  Peru 
abandoned  her  ardent  aspiration  to  recover  the  terri- 
tory which  had  been  ceded  for  ten  years,  not  with  the 
object  of  protecting  the  nitrate  region  or  as  a  safe- 
guard of  the  new  Chilean  frontiers,  but  in  reality  as 
the  guarantee  of  an  indemnity  which  was  to  be  added 
to  that  represented  by  the  cession  of  Tarapaca — terri- 
tory that  exceeded  in  value,  as  is  well  known,  all  the 
indemnities  of  war  ever  recorded. 

In  conclusion,  Senor  Porras  expressed  his  confi- 
dence that  the  present  step  of  the  Government  of 
Chile  towards  an  understanding  with  Peru  based  on 
justice,  would  open  a  new  horizon  for  international  re- 
lations; and  to  this  object  the  distinguished  persons 
who  represented  Chile  would  contribute  by  permitting 
the  discussion  to  continue  along  a  frank  line  towards 
conciliation. 

Sehor  Aldunate  could  not  understand  the  reluctance 
of  Senor  Porras  to  accept  the  Chilean  request  for  the 


619 

holding  of  the  plebiscite  required  by  Article  III  of 
the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  since  this  plebiscite  was  a  right 
derived  from  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  Article,  and 
recognized  and  claimed  by  Peru  throughout  the 
negotiations,  as  was  demonstrated  by  the  agreements 
of  1898  and  1912,  and  the  proposals  for  a  plebiscite  of 
Senor  Porras  himself  in  1909. 

' '  We  had  come  to  Washington  animated  by  a  spirit  of 
conciliation ;  but  we  had  come  to  fulfill  the  Treaty,  and 
not  to  leave  without  effect  the  provision  for  a  plebi- 
scite. ' ' 

When  an  agreement  stipulates  an  appeal  to  the 
popular  will,  it  is  no  excuse  for  not  fulfilling  it  to  pre- 
sume that  the  vote  may  favor  one  or  the  other  side.  He 
could  not  understand  why  Peru  should  describe  as 
strange  or  ridiculous  the  plebiscite  requested  for  1922 
or  1923,  when  Peru  herself  suggested  it  for  1933. 

The  argument  of  Senor  Porras  would  lead  to  the 
position  that  Chile  was  obliged  to  accept  the  conditions 
for  the  plebiscite  that  Peru  might  propose,  and  that 
the  penalty  for  losing  the  territory  because  of  a  pre- 
sumption that  she  was  unjustifiably  delaying  the 
plebiscite.  This  agreement  could  be  turned  against 
Peru,  which  had  proposed  conditions  as  strange  as  the 
one  that  only  Peruvians  should  vote,  and  had  thus  led 
to  Chile 's  rejection  of  them  and  the  postponement  of 
the  plebiscite. 

All  that  could  be  gathered  from  the  arguments  of 
Senor  Porras  was  that  the  provision  of  Article  III  of 
the  Treaty  of  Ancon  was  harsh ;  but  it  was  being  over- 
looked that  the  War  of  the  Pacific  was  hard  for  Chile, 
which  had  not  provoked  it,  and  which  ran  the  risk  of 
seeing  her  territory  invaded,  of  losing  all  the  nitrate 
and  mining  regions  within  her  former  boundaries,  and 
of  being  converted  into  a  power   of  the  third   rank 


620 

in  Latin-America.  Senor  Porras  had  said  that  the 
cession  of  Tacna  and  Arica  was  stipulated  only  as  a 
guarantee  for  monetary  indemnity.  Such,  in  fact,  was 
the  form  of  the  cession  claimed  at  the  Conferences  on 
the  ' '  Lackawanna ' '  after  the  first  and  second  cam- 
paigns ;  but  after  the  Lima  campaign,  Chile  demanded 
possession  of,  and  sovereignty  over,  these  provinces 
with  a  view  to  acquire  the  definitive  control  of  them. 

Sehor  Aldunate  felt  obliged  also  to  draw  attention 
to  the  acts  of  violence  attributed  to  the  Chilean  au- 
thorities with  the  implication  of  an  idea  of  modifying 
the  electoral  situation  in  Tacna  and  Arica.  He  was  of 
the  view  that  this  description  could  not  be  given  to  the 
acts  of  sovereignty  carried  out  in  pursuance  of  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon,  nor  to  the  acts  necessary  to  render 
ineffective  the  sovereignty  which  Peru  pretended  to 
exercise  by  indirect  measures  over  the  territories  after 
1893.  Nor  was  it  an  act  of  violence  to  have  expelled 
some  agitators  as  a  measure  of  public  order.  In  the 
long  stretch  of  almost  forty  years  not  fifty  cases  could 
be  counted,  each  of  which  was  individually  justified, 
which  would  certainly  not  change  the  result  of  a  plebis- 
cite in  a  population  of  about  40,000  souls. 

In  recent  times,  an  attempt  had  been  made  to  con- 
fuse the  situation  of  Tacna  and  Arica  with  episodes 
in  Tarapaca,  a  purely  Chilean  province.  The  Peru- 
vians resident  in  this  province,  who  had  always 
worked  in  the  nitrate  deposits  and  had  freely  enjoyed 
the  fruits  of  their  labors  in  the  shelter  of  the  laws  of 
Chile,  began  to  agitate  under  the  influence  of  the  pro- 
paganda for  the  recovery  emanating  from  Lima,  with 
the  idea  that  through  the  annulment  of  the  Treaty  of 
Ancon,  Peru  would  recover  the  province  of  Tarapaca. 
With  this  agitation,  there  synchronized  the  suspension 
of  work  in  the  nitrate  fields  by  reason  of  the  falling  off 


621 

in  world  consumption  of  nitrate ;  and  as  a  result,  there 
followed  the  obligatory  exodus  of  the  laborers.  Thou- 
sands of  Bolivian  workmen  made  their  way  to  the 
plateau.  Thousands  of  Chilean  workmen  took  ships 
for  the  south.  The  Peruvian  laborers  had  also  to 
leave,  by  the  thousands,  and  they  left  first  because  of 
the  state  of  patriotic  excitement  that  had  been  stirred 
up  by  the  Peruvian  propaganda.  Such  being  the  cir- 
cumstances, there  had  occurred  certain  acts  of  violence 
among  individuals,  the  responsibility  for  which  was 
not  accepted  by  the  Government  of  Chile.  And  even 
on  the  assumption  that  these  events  which  occurred 
only  in  Tarapaca  could  have  been  prevented  by  the 
Chilean  authorities,  it  was  evident  that  these  episodes 
had  nothing  to  do  with  the  situation  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  nor  with  the  problem  of  the  plebiscite. 

In  conclusion,  Sehor  Aldunate  made  clear  that  he 
discerned  the  lofty  spirit  of  the  Peruvian  Delegates 
and  their  sincere  desire  to  achieve  an  understanding, 
and  he  would  take  the  liberty  of  inviting  them  to  con- 
tinue the  discussion  on  the  basis  of  the  agreement  of 
1912  concerning  the  plebiscite,  that  had  been  proposed 
by  the  Government  of  Peru  and  accepted  by  that  of 
Chile,  and  that  had  not  been  perfected  because  of  cir- 
cumstances foreign  to  the  will  of  both  Governments. 

This  agreement  was  the  most  advanced  step  taken 
in  the  long  negotiations,  and  in  a  matter  of  such  im- 
portance it  would  not  be  right  to  go  back.  If  Peru 
thought  the  lapse  of  time  until  1933  too  long,  and  pro- 
posed its  reduction,  Senor  Aldunate  added  that  Chile 
would  accept  the  same. 

Senor  Porras  declared  that,  in  view  of  the  insistence 
of  the  line  of  argument  of  Senor  Aldunate,  he  was  con- 
tenting himself  with  setting  forth  the  following  decla- 
rations, some  of  which  he  had  already  made,  and  which 


622 

he  offered  to  support  with  ample  documentary  proof  if 
desired : 

That  the  real  origin  of  the  war  is  a  matter 
thoroughly  explored  by  nationals  and  foreigners,  and 
that,  consequently  it  is  of  little  use  to  discuss  it  for  the 
time  being. 

That  it  is  an  error  to  assert  that  the  proposition  for 
indemnification  with  regard  to  Tacna  and  Arica  dis- 
appeared after  the  Lima  campaign,  since  the  Protocol 
of  Vina  del  Mar,  signed  more  than  a  year  after  that 
date,  demonstrates  the  contrary  to  be  the  fact. 

That  Tacna  and  Arica  were  ceded  for  ten  years  and 
not  forty.  As  Chile  has  retained,  by  her  own  acts,  this 
territory  longer  than  the  term  agreed  upon,  she  alone 
has  prevented  the  Treaty  from  being  effective,  since 
the  hypothetical  alternative,  namely,  that  Peru  was  in- 
terested in  not  recovering  her  territory  is  absurd. 

That  during  the  long  debate  over  the  conditions  of 
the  plebsicite,  Peru  was  always  disposed  to  submit  to 
arbitration  the  differences  that  arise,  that  Chile  never 
consented  to  this,  and  that,  in  consequence,  the  con- 
tinuation of  disagreement  is  due  to  Chile  and  not  to 
Peru. 

That  the  negotiations  that  Peru  has  sought  to  begin 
from  time  to  time  in  the  past  constituted  generous  con- 
cessions made  with  the  object  of  obtaining  immediate 
results,  but  they  never  signified  any  recognition  of  the 
right  of  Chile  to  dispose  of  the  fate  of  the  provinces 
of  Tacna  and  Arica,  and  that  the  postponement  pro- 
posed by  the  Executive  of  the  year  1912,  upon  which 
Senor  Aldunate  puts  such  emphasis,  had  the  object 
heretofore  explained. 

It  has  already  been  pointed  out  that  it  is  incorrect 
to  say  that  the  1912  agreement  was  the  most  advanced 
step  in  the  debate  over  the  plebiscite,  since  it  was  not 


623 

approved  by  the  Congress  or  the  public  opinion  of 
Peru,  quite  the  opposite  of  what  took  place  with  the 
Billinghurst-Latorre  protocol  of  1898,  which  was  in 
fact  approved  by  Peru  because  it  was  to  be  given  effect 
at  once,  and  because  it  appealed  to  arbitration  to  settle 
the  differences  of  opinion  that  had  presented  them- 
selves. 

That  the  plebiscite,  in  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of 
Ancon,  is  important  as  a  means  and  not  as  an  end. 
The  end  indicated  was  that  the  provinces  should  be- 
long to  whichever  country  should  have  the  majority  in 
March,  1894,  and  not  in  1922  or  later. 

To  wish  that  Peru  should  humbly  content  herself 
with  imagining  that  we  are  living  in  1894  and  that  we 
are  to  forget  all  that  has  since  transpired  is  to  try  to 
have  the  means  prevail  over  the  end. 

That  the  events  which  occurred  in  1918  and  before 
and  since  that  time  in  Tarapaca,  Tacna,  Arica  and 
other  places  to  which  reference  is  made  in  the  official 
Peruvian  documents  dealing  with  them,  did  in  fact  take 
place,  and  had  a  very  grave  character.  This  is  the 
point  to  be  dealt  with  on  another  occasion. 

In  short,  the  Delegation  of  Peru  can  not  accept  the 
discussion  of  conditions  for  the  plebiscite,  neither  on 
the  basis  of  the  negotiation  of  1912,  nor  any  other. 

Its  dignity,  and  the  right  it  has  to  consider  that  Peru/ 
virtually  won  the  plebiscite  of  1894,  prevent  it  from 
doing  so. 

Yet,  as  the  Delegates  of  Chile  do  not  admit  this  con- 
clusion, and  insist  on  the  ideas  they  have  expressed, 
it  seems  unnecessary,  Senor  Porras  adds  to  recall 
events  and  reenact  discussions  annoying  for  some  and 
sad  for  others. 

Consequently,  taking  into  consideration  the  essential 
obligations  of  the  present  Conference,  Senor  Porras 
proposes  the  following  agreement : 


624 

There  would  be  submitted  to  the  arbitrator,  as  the 
essential  point  that  is  the  subject  of  our  discussions, 
the  following: 

"For  the  purpose  of  determining  the  manner  in 
which  the  stipulations  of  Article  III  of  the  Treaty 
of  Ancon  shall  be  fulfilled  there  shall  be  submitted 
to  arbitration  the  question  whether,  in  the  present 
circumstances,  the  plebiscite  shall  or  shall  not  be 
held. 

"If  it  is  not  to  be  held,  to  which  country  shall  be- 
long the  definitive  dominion  over  Tacna  and  Arica 
and  under  what  conditions. 

"If  it  is  to  be  held,  under  what  conditions  shall 
the  plebiscite  take  place. ' ' 

Senor  Izquierdo,  without  setting  out  to  answer  the 
arguments  forcefully  and  brilliantly  presented  by 
Senor  Porras,  to  which  Senor  Aldunate  would  address 
himself,  stated  that  the  Chilean  Delegation  could  not 
accept  the  agreement  just  proposed,  inasmuch  as  it 
tended  to  render  doubtful  the  validity  of  one  of  the 
provisions  of  the  Treaty,  upon  the  exact  and  loyal  ful- 
fillment of  which  both  Delegations  were  set.    . 

Senor  Izquierdo  was  of  the  view  that  it  would  not  be 
opportune  to  discuss  at  that  moment  the  causes  of  the 
War  of  the  Pacific.  The  Conference  had  just  the  noble 
object  of  causing  it  to  be  forgotten  by  wiping  out  in 
both  countries  the  feelings  that  threatened  to  continue 
even  after  the  generations  that  witnessed  the  war.  Nor 
did  he  attach  excessive  importance  to  the  point  that 
had  been  made  as  to  the  value  of  the  various  negotia- 
tions begun  to  settle  the  handling  of  the  plebiscite.  Al- 
though it  was  in  his  opinion  beyond  question  that  the 
negotiations  of  1912  were  those  that  should  constitute 
the  point  of  departure,  since  they  were  most  recent, 
and  the  only  negotiations  in  which  there  was  a  direct 
and  complete  understanding  between  the  negotiators, 


625 

he  believed  that  the  Conference  could  adopt  other 
bases  of  discussion  which  would  carry  it  away  from 
the  draft  that  Doctor  Porras  was  endorsing,  on  the 
margin,  as  it  were,  of  the  Treaty.  In  reality,  Sehor 
Izquierdo  went  on  to  add,  the  most  advanced  negotia- 
tions and  the  one  nearest  the  termination  of  the  diffi- 
culties were  those  being  held  as  a  result  of  the  initia- 
tive of  the  United  States,  and  in  which  Peru  and  Chile 
alike  had  accepted  beforehand  submission  to  arbitra- 
tion of  the  insoluble  differences  of  opinion  blocking 
the  aim  of  the  Conference,  namely,  the  fulfillment  of 
the  unfulfilled  portions  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon.  This 
being  his  understanding  of  the  case,  and  he  himself 
being  desirous  to  smooth  the  way  to  the  selection  by 
Peru  of  a  basis  of  discussion  not  going  outside  the 
field  set  aside  for  the  Conference,  he  was  going  to  pro- 
pose an  agreement  which  he  would  formulate  without 
delay,  and  in  which,  in  addition  to  the  negotiations  of 
1912  indicated  by  Senor  Alplunate,  he  would  include 
others  which  could  not  fail  to  be  well  received  by  the 
Delegation  of  Peru. 

Finally,  Senor  Izquierdo  felt  obliged  to  maintain 
that  under  the  Treaty,  under  its  express  and  inescapa- 
ble terms,  and  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  that  in- 
spired it  and  even  in  view  of  the  possibility  of  giving 
it  effect  in  practice,  it  was  not  possible  to  ignore  the 
wishes  of  the  inhabitants,  nor  the  plebiscite  as  a  means 
of  ascertaining  those  wishes,  in  order  to  determine  the 
future  nationality  of  the  territory  in  dispute.  Other- 
wise, without  the  plebiscite,  the  fate  of  this  territory 
would  remain  uncertain  and  in  the  air,  and  it  would  be 
necessary  to  have  recourse  to  proceedings  entirely  for- 
eign to  the  Treaty,  such  as  that  suggested  by  the  Dele- 
gates of  Peru.  It  would  be  necessary  to  entrust  to  the 
Government  of  the  United  States,  or  to  some  other 


626 

Government,  the  decision  ad  libitum  as  to  the  fate  of 
the  provinces ;  and  this  wonld  not  properly  be  arbitra- 
tion, but  an  inadmissible  delegation  of  sovereignty. 

Sehor  Izquierdo  proposed  in  conclusion  the  follow- 
ing draft : 

"The  Delegation  of  Chile  submits  as  a  basis  of 
discussion,  in  order  to  reach  agreement  on  the  con- 
ditions of  the  plebiscite  that  is  to  be  carried  out 
in  accordance  with  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of 
Ancon,  and  with  a  view  to  determine  the  points  of 
disagreement  which  would  be  subject-matter  for 
arbitration,  the  following  propositions : 

1.  The  Huneeus-Valera  negotiations  of  1912; 

2.  The  counter  proposal  submitted  by  Sen  or 
Porras  in  his  capacity  as  Minister  of  Foreign  Af- 
fairs of  Peru  to  the  Legation  of  Chile  in  Lima  on 
November  5,  1909,  together  with  the  modifications 
to  be  proposed  by  the  Chilean  Delegates ; 

3.  The  immediate  submission  to  arbitration  of 
all  the  conditions  of  the  plebiscite  on  which  there 
had  been  no  previous  agreement  between  the  two 
Governments,  or  on  which  there  had  been  contra- 
dictory conclusions." 

Senor  Aldunate  explained  that  the  proposal  of  the 
bases  of  1912  had  been  made  as  a  starting  point  for  the 
discussion  of  the  subject  of  the  plebiscite,  and  he  had, 
in  consequence,  no  difficulty  in  accepting  the  proposals 
of  Senor  Izquierdo.  He  was  even  able  to  add  the  fol- 
lowing : 

"4.  The  commencement  of  discussions  on  the 
bases  of  the  plebiscite  without  reference  to  any  of 
the  previous  negotiations,  the  differences  to  be 
submitted  to  arbitration. ' ' 

The  foregoing  proposal,  remarked  Senor  Aldunate, 
and  the  three  included  in  the  draft  of  Senor  Izquierdo 


627 

would  be  taken  up  as  bases  for  discussion  at  the  op- 
tion of  the  Peruvian  Delegates,  without  prejudice, 
naturally,  to  the  right  of  Chile  to  ask  the  arbitrators 
to  accept  the  ideas  contained  in  any  one  of  them. 

The  concluding  proposal  of  Sehor  Porras,  was  not 
acceptable  according  to  the  ideas  of  Sehor  Aldunate, 
for  it  went  outside  the  terms  of  the  engagement  that 
had  brought  us  to  Washington,  that  is — as  has  been 
repeatedly  stated,  the  search  for  a  manner  of  giving 
effect  to  the  unfulfilled  parts  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon. 
The  Peruvian  formula  amounted  in  substance  to  a  re- 
quest that  the  arbitrator  declare  settled  or  ineffective 
the  stipulation  in  Article  III  concerning  the  plebiscite. 
Far  from  facilitating  the  fulfillment  of  the  Treaty,  it 
would  facilitate  its  non-fulfillment.  Nevertheless,  the 
Chilean  Delegation  would  hasten  to  acquaint  its  Gov- 
ernment with  the  proposal  as  an  act  of  deference  to  the 
Government  of  Peru,  in  the  hope  that  some  means 
might  be  found  to  prevent  the  breakdown  of  the  Con- 
ference. 

Sehor  Aldunate  has  no  wish  to  prolong  the  polemic 
that  has  become  evident  to  a  certain  point  in  these  de- 
bates on  the  antecedents  of  the  conflict;  but  he  found 
himself  obliged  to  make  a  few  remarks  so  as  not  to 
appear  to  assent  to  the  conclusions  with  which  Sehor 
Porras  wished  to  close  the  discussion. 

He  was  of  the  opinion  also  that  for  the  moment  it 
would  be  inopportune  to  dwell  upon  the  true  origin  of 
the  war;  but  he  believed  that  its  origin  was  known, 
and  that  without  recalling  it,  it  would  be  difficult  to 
grasp  the  spirit  of  the  unfulfilled  provisions  of  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon. 

There  is  no  error,  as  Sefior  Porras  thought,  in  sta- 
ting that  the  demands  of  Chile  as  to  Tacna  and  Arica 
were  greater  after  the  Lima  campaign   than   in    the 


628 

"  Lackawanna  "  Conferences.    In  a  circular  of  May  26, 
1901,  the  Peruvian  Government  it  was  that  declared: 

"The  victories  which  Chile  subsequently  won 
aroused  greater  ambition,  and  a  year  later,  in 
1891,  the  cession  of  Tacna  and  Arica  was  de- 
manded as  a  condition  sine  qua  non  to  peace,  in 
the  negotiations  begun  in  the  following  two 
years. ' ' 

The  very  Protocol  of  Vina  del  Mar  cited  by  Sehor 
Porras  involved  the  idea  of  a  sale  or  concealed  cession. 

Senor  Porras  had  repeated  the  statement  that  Tacna 
and  Arica  were  ceded  for  ten  and  not  for  forty  years. 
The  truth  was  that  they  were  not  ceded  for  ten  or 
forty  years.  They  were  placed  in  the  possession  and* 
under  the  sovereignty  of  Chile  for  ten  years,  and  until 
a  plebiscite  subsequent  to  this  period  should  determine 
their  definitive  ownership. 

No  provision  of  the  Jreaty  placed  an  obligation  upon 
Chile  to  submit  to  arbitration  the  conditions  of  the 
plebiscite,  and  it  represented  a  genuine  concession  on 
her  part  to  accept  this  procedure,  which  Peru  was  now 
rejecting. 

It  could  be  maintained,  Senor  Aldunate  added,  that 
the  plebiscite  was  a  means  and  not  an  end ;  but  it  was 
a  means  or  condition  essential  to  attain  the  end. 

He  regretted  the  confusion  Senor  Porras  made  be- 
tween Tarapaca  and  Tacna  and  Arica,  at  a  time  when 
discussion  was  taking  place  only  on  the  condition  of 
the  two  latter  provinces,  and  he  was  confident  that 
the  Chilean  Government  would  not  shrink  from  the 
clearing  up  of  any  of  the  charges  levelled  at  the  exer- 
cise of  her  sovereignty  in  the  disputed  territory,  when 
it  would  be  appropriate  to  consider  them.  This  would 
be  a  thing  indispensable  to  the  good  name  of  the  nation, 


629 

even  though  the  charges  could  be  ignored  as  irrelevant. 
Senor  Aldunate  later  declared  that,  the  Government 
of  Chile  having  been  consulted  regarding  the  draft  sub- 
mitted by  the  Delegates  of  Peru,  the  Chilean  Delega- 
tion could  not  accept  it,  but  proposed  in  its  stead,  in 
obedience  to  their  instructions,  the  following: 

' '  Sharing  the  aim  of  the  Peruvian  Delegation  to 
find  a  method  of  giving  effect  to  Article  III  of  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon,  and  having  in  view  the  fact 
that  the  first  proposition  of  the  Peruvian  scheme 
makes  subject  to  the  possibility  of  eventual  elimi- 
nation, the  juridical  principle  of  consulting  the  in- 
habitants of  Tacna  and  Arica  to  determine  the 
definitive  sovereignty  of  those  territories,  in  cir- 
cumstances in  which  such  consultation  is  required 
by  universal  law  and  contained  in  a  Treaty,  the 
integral  effectiveness  of  which,  and  entire  respect 
for  which,  constituted  the  ground  for  the  invita- 
tion of  the  United  States,  the  Government  of  Chile 
accepts  the  third  proposition  of  the  Peruvian  for- 
mula, and  proposes  that  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  fix  the  form  in  which  the  electoral 
decision  is  to  be  ascertained. ' ' 

Senor  Porras  made  clear  that  the  draft  which  he 
had  had  the  honor  to  submit  under  date  of  May  27 
consisted  of  three  inseparable  parts,  and  that,  inas- 
much as  the  first  of  them  was  the  essential  one,  he  con- 
sidered the  Chilean  counter  proposition  so  inacceptable 
that  it  would  not  be  in  point  even  to  communicate  it 
to  his  Government.  All  that  he  found  in  it  that  he 
could  accept — and  this  he  hastened  to  accept  in  the 
name  of  Peru — was  the  designation  of  the  United 
States  Government  as  arbitrator  of  the  question. 

Senor  Velarde  declared  that  the  divergent  opinions 
of  the  two  Governments  as  to  the  manner  of  weighing 
and  clearing  up  the  situation  created  by  the  non-ful- 


630 

fillment  of  some  clauses  of  the  Treaty  of  1884  had  given 
ground  for  the  invitation  of  the  President  of  the 
United  States  to  the  effect  that  representatives  of  Peru 
and  Chile  gathered  in  Washington  should  try  to  elimi- 
nate, by  means  of  a  direct  agreement  and  if  necessary 
an  appeal  to  arbitration,  the  difficulties  opposing  the 
agreement  of  interpretations  and  aim  between  the  two 
Republics. 

The  Delegates  of  Chile,  basing  themselves  on  the 
ground  chosen  by  their  Government,  had  expressed  the 
opinion  that  the  only  possible  solution  of  these  difficul- 
ties was  to  be  found  in  the  exact  and  loyal  fulfillment 
of  these  provisions,  without  taking  into  account  the 
fact  that  it  was  a  question  of  fulfilling  international 
agreement  subject  to  the  carrying  out  of  conditions 
placed  beside  them, — a  circumstance  that  made  impos- 
sible any  solution  along  the  line  supported  by  them. 

The  debate  had  centered  about  the  third  Clause,  and 
Chile  sustained  that  the  clearing  up  of  the  difficulties 
now  offered  in  the  way  of  carrying  out  that  clause, 
merely  consisted  in  the  negotiation  of  the  protocol  re- 
garding the  details  of  the  plebiscite;  in  other  words, 
the  literal  fulfillment  of  the  Treaty. 

The  Chilean  Delegates  had  not  taken  into  considera- 
tion that  the  clause  in  question  fixes  the  term  of  occu- 
pation, and  determines  the  period  when  the  plebiscite 
was  to  have  been  held ;  that  the  term  has  expired,  and 
the  period  has  passed  by  both  merged  in  the  lapse  of 
twenty-eight  years  of  unwarranted  occupation;  and 
joined  with  them,  inseparable  from  them  must  have 
gone  the  relevant  stipulation,  regarding  the  plebiscite. 

The  Delegation  of  Peru,  continued  Doctor  Velarde, 
with  the  motive  and  sincere  object  of  having  the  re- 
sults of  this  Conference  measured  up  to  the  expecta- 
tion had  of  it,  had  proposed  in  the  preceding  session 


631 

that  there  be  submitted  to  arbitration  the  two  points 
of  view  that  have  clashed  in  the  discussion ;  they  now 
saw  with  real  emotion  that  their  proposal  was  rejected, 
and  another  substituted  for  it — another  wherein  only 
the  formalities  of  the  plebiscite  were  taken  into  account, 
thus  holding  to  the  idea  that  the  aim  of  the  Conference 
was  the  literal  fulfillment  of  the  Treaty,  and  not  that 
overcoming  the  difficulties  arising  from  its  non-fulfill- 
ment. 

Doctor  Porras  had  just  said  that  the  Chilean  pro- 
posal was  unacceptable  to  such  a  degree  that  he  could 
not  consent  to  submit  it  to  the  study  of  the  Government 
of  Peru,  and  Senor  Velarde  adhered,  in  identical 
terms,  to  the  declaration  of  his  colleague. 

Senor  Velarde  then  remarked  that  he  thought  it 
proper  to  submit  an  observation  of  an  informative 
character,  and  furnish  a  record  of  fact. 

The  information  concerned  the  divergence  of  view 
between  Senores  Porras  and  Aldunate  regarding  the 
view  of  Chile  as  to  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica 
after  the  campaign  of  Lima.  Senor  Velarde  thought 
that  the  immediate  solution  of  this  disagreement  of 
view  could  be  found  in  the  report  submitted  by  the 
Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Chile,  Don  Luis  Aldu- 
nate, in  1883. 

The  fact  of  which  Senor  Velarde  desired  to  leave  due 
record  in  opposition  to  the  declaration  of  the  Chilean 
Delegates,  without  entering  into  details  nor  abstract 
discussions  that  were  really  not  relevant,  was  that 
Peru  did  not  cede  her  sovereignty  to  Chile  over  the 
provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  but  yielded  to  her  the 
faculty  of  occupying  and  adminstering  them  for  a  spe- 
cified time. 

Senor  Aldunate  did  not  wish,  he  stated,  to  draw  out 
those  discussions;  he  would,  therefore,  in  answer  to 


632 

Senor  Velarde,  content  himself  with  reminding  him 
that  the  third  Clause  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  delivered 
to  Chile  the  possession,  that  is,  the  tenancy  in  the  sense 
of  lord,  of  the  provinces,  as  subjected  them  to  Chilean 
law  and  the  Chilean  authorities  (or,  in  other  words, 
the  constituents  of  sovereignty),  providing,  moreover, 
that  a  plebiscite  would  decide  whether  the  provinces 
would  remain  definitively  under  the  domain  and  sover- 
eignty of  Chile,  which  would  imply  possession  and 
sovereignty  prior  to  the  plebiscite. 

So  far  as  the  opinions  of  Don  Luis  Aldunate  were 
concerned,  Senor  Aldunate  made  reference  to  the  mon- 
ograph that  this  scholar  in  international  jurisprudence 
had  published  respecting  the  background  of  the  Treaty 
of  Ancon. 

In  view  of  the  declaration  previously  made  by  Senor 
Porras  the  Delegations  agreed  to  suspend  their  meet- 
ings, and  to  acquaint  the  respective  Embassies  with 
the  state  of  progress  they  had  made,  in  order  that  the 
Embassies  might,  if  they  deemed  it  proper,  communi- 
cate information  concerning  the  matter  to  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  which  had  extended  the  in- 
vitation. 

Signed  in  quadruplicate  in  Washington,  June  30, 
1922. 

Caelos  Aldunate, 
L.  Izquierdo, 

Delegates  Plenipotentiary  of  Chile, 

M.  F.  Porras, 
Hernan  Velarde, 

Delegates  Plenipotentiary  of  Peru, 

Alejandro  Alvarez, 

Counselor  of  the  Chilean  Delegation, 


633 


Solon  Polo, 
Counselor  of  the  Peruvian  Delegation, 

Jobje  Silva, 
Luis  E.  Feliu  H., 

Secretaries  of  the  Chilean  Delegation, 

G.  N.  Abambubu, 
J.  A.  de  Buenavista, 

Secretaries  of  the  Peruvian  Delegation. 


Memorandum  Presented  by  Embassador  of  Chile  in 
United  States  to  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United 
States,  on  June  15, 1922. 

[Translation.] 

I.  The  Embassy  of  Chile  believes  the  time  has  come 
to  inform  the  Department  of  State  of  the  present  situa- 
tion of  the  Chilean-Peruvian  negotiations,  after  the 
Chilean  Delegation  has  been  forced  to  consider  its 
efforts  to  reach  a  direct  understanding  with  the  Peru- 
vian Delegation  exhausted. 

II.  The  Delegation  of  Chile  has  proposed,  in  the 
course  of  the  meetings,  five  formulas  for  solution 
within  the  range  of  which,  according  to  the  opinion  of 
its  Government,  has  always  lain  the  only  material  for 
discussion  between  the  two  countries,  namely:  the  con- 
ditions under  which  ought  to  be  effected  the  plebiscite 
stipulated  in  Article  III — still  unfulfilled — of  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon.  The  five  Chilean  formulas  were 
wholly  rejected  by  the  Delegation  of  Peru.  These 
formulas  were: 

a.  To  hold  the  plebiscite  according  to  the  agreements 
of  the  Huneeus-Valera  negotiation  of  1912; 


634 

b.  To  hold  it  according  to  the  counter  proposal  pre- 
sented by  Senor  Porras  as  Minister  of  Foreign  Rela- 
tions of  Peru  to  the  Legation  of  Chile  in  Lima  on  Nov- 
ember 5,  1909,  together  with* the  modifications  that 
may  be  proposed  by  the  Delegation  of  Chile; 

c.  To  submit,  at  once,  to  arbitration  all  the  plebi- 
scitary conditions  as  to  which  a  previous  agreement 
may  not  have  been  reached  between  the  two  Govern- 
ments or  as  to  which  there  may  have  been  contradic- 
tory proposals; 

d.  To    proceed   to    discuss    the    plebiscitary   bases , 
without  regard  to  any  of  the  previous  negotiations, 
submitting  the  differences  to  arbitration; 

e.  Coinciding  with  the  purpose  manifested  by  the 
Preuvian  Delegation  in  respect  of  seeking  a  way  to 
carry  into  effect  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon, 
and  considering  that  the  first  proposal  of  its  formula 
subjects  to  the  contingency  of  an  elimination  the  jurid- 
ical principles  of  a  referendum  to  the  inhabitants  of 
Tacna  and  Arica  to  decide  as  to  the  definitive  sover- 
eignty of  those  territories,  under  circumstances  im- 
posed on  this  referendum  by  universal  law  and  con- 
tained in  a  treaty  the  unimpaired  force  of  and  respect 
for  which  constituted  the  basis  of  the  American  in- 
vitation, the  Government  of  Chile  accepts  the  third 
proposal  of  the  Peruvian  formula,  and  it  proposes  to 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  that  it  shall  de- 
termine the  manner  in  which  the  plebiscitary  referen- 
dum shall  be  held. 

Proposals  a,  b,  c  and  d  were  offered  as  optional  to 
the  Peruvian  Delegation.  Proposal  c  was  made  as  a 
counter  proposal  to  formula  b  of  the  Delegation  of 
Peru. 

III.  The  Delegation  of  Peru  has  proposed,  on  its 
part,  the  following  formulas: 


635 

a.  That  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  be  applied  in  such 
a  way  as  to  establish  presumptively  the  will  of  the  in- 
habitants of  Tacna  and  Arica  in  1894;  and,  inasmuch 
as  that  will  is  known,  the  plebiscite  shall  be  assumed 
to  have  been  effected,  and  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  shall  be  returned  to  Peru. 

b.  For  the  purpose  of  determining  the  manner  in 
which  the^  stipulations  of  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of 
Ancon  shall  be  fulfilled  there  shall  be  submitted  to  ar- 
bitration the  question  whether,  in  the  present  circum- 
stances, the  plebiscite  shall  or  shall  not  be  held.  If  it 
is  not  to  be  held,  to  which  country  shall  belong  the 
definitive  dominion  over  Tacna  and  Arica  and  under 
what  conditions.  It  it  is  to  be  held,  under  what  con- 
ditions shall  the  plebiscite  take  place. 

IV.  The  Chilean  Delegation  deplores  its  inability 
to  accept  either  of  the  two  formulas  of  the  Peruvian 
Delegation,  because  it  has  judged  that  they  are  not 
addressed  to  the  fulfillment  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon, 
they,  besides, '  departing  from  the  terms  of  the  invi- 
tation of  President  Harding,  accepted  by  the  Govern- 
ments, which,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Chilean  Dele- 
gation, establish  a  tacit  agreement  as  to  the  material 
discussable  in  this  conference  and  as  to  the  eventual 
arbitration  contemplated  in  that  invitation. 

V.  The  Embassy  of  Chile,  in  testifying  to  the  fu- 
tility of  the  efforts  of  the  Delegation  of  its  country  to 
arrive  at  the  agreement  sought,  renews,  in  the  name 
of  its  Government,  the  purpose  of  accepting  any  form- 
ula for  a  settlement  that  shall  be  in  conformity  with 
the  fulfillment  of  the  Treaty  and  with  the  terms  of 
President  Harding's  invitation. 

Washington,  June  15,  1923. 
To  His  Excellency, 
The  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States. 


636 

Ambassador  of  Chile  in  United  States  to  Minister  of 
Foreign  Relations  of  Chile. 

[Translation.] 
(Telegram.) 

(Taken  from  an  address  delivered  by  the  Minister  of 
Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile,  in  the  Session  of  the 
Senate,  August  4,  1922.) 

Washington  July  6y  1922. 

Ministry  of  Foreign  Relations — Santiago. 

No.  113.  The  Secretary  of  State  sent  for  me  to- 
day, Thursday,  to  tell  me  that,  as  a  result  of  the  con- 
sultation of  the  Peruvian  Delegation  with  Lima,  Porras 
had  been  to  see  him,  signifying  that  Peru  was  re- 
solved to  abandon  her  demand  for  arbitration  in  the 
future  and  problematical  negotiations  with  Chile,  in 
the  case  of  the  arbitrator  declaring  that  the  plebiscite 
would  not  take  place,  it  should  be  established  now,  in 
some  form,  that  the  two  countries  would  accept  the 
good  offices  of  the  United  States  in  said  negotiations. 

Hughes  explained  to  me  that  he  was  submitting  the 
point  for  our  consideration,  deeming  that  it  would  not 
alter  the  essential  nature  of  our  situation  in  the  case 
in  question,  since  we  would  remain  at  liberty  to  ac- 
cept or  reject  whatever  formula  or  solution  might  be 
proposed,  should  the  contingency  arise;  that  the  good 
offices  in  question  would  be  such  as  he  is  exercising 
at  this  time,  without  compromising  anyone.  Hughes 
endeavored  to  persuade  me  that  the  concession  was 
more  apparent  than  real,  that  it  had  no  significance 
for  the  situation  in  which  we  would  remain  in  the 
event  contemplated  and  he  concluded  by  asking  me 
to  consult  yon. 

Mathieu. 


637 

Ambassador  of  Chile  in  United  States  to  Secretary  of 
State  of  United  States. 

[Translation.] 

Embassy  of  Chile, 
Washington,  July  19,  1922. 

My  Dear  Mr.  Secretary: 

My  Government  has  sent  to  me  instructions  which 
make  it  necessary  for  me  to  take  advantage  of  your 
kindness  in  requesting  you  to  assist  me  in  clearing  up 
a  mistaken  interpretation  which  has  been  given  in 
Chile,  to  the  clause  relative  to  the  situation  of  the 
provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  in  case  the  arbitrator 
decides  that  the  plebiscite  stipulated  in  Article  III 
of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  shall  not  be  held.  The  clause 
in  question  was  incorporated  into  the  agreement  in 
conformity  with  the  suggestion  made  by  you  to  the 
Delegates  of  Chile  and  Peru. 

My  Government  has  accepted  this  clause  with  the 
understanding  that  when  it  is  stated  that  "the  ad- 
ministrative organization  of  the  provinces  shall  not 
be  disturbed"  such  statement  confirms  the  provision 
of  Article  III  of  the  Treaty,  which  subjects  the  ter- 
ritory to  the  l '  Chilean  laws  and  authorities. ' ' 

In  order  to  remove  the  doubts  to  which  I  have  re- 
ferred, and,  at  the  same  time  avoid  any  possible  future 
misunderstanding  with  reference  to  the  meaning  to 
be  given  to  the  clause  suggested  by  you,  I  take 
the  liberty  to  request  Your  Excellency  to  inform  me 
whether  my  thought  is  correct  that  in  suggesting  the 
words, 

"It  is  understood,  in  the  interest  of  peace  and 
good  order,  that  in  this  event  and  pending  an 
agreement  as  to  the  disposition  of  the  territory, 


638 

the  administrative  organization  of  the  provinces 
shall  not  be  disturbed," 

Your  Excellency  did  not  have  in  view  changing  the 
actual  status  of  territory  as  determined  by  the  Treaty 
of  Ancon,  nor  did  you  thereby  have  in  view  conferring 
either  upon  Chile  or  Peru  new  title  or  new  rights. 

Thanking  you  in  advance  for  your  courtesy  in  con- 
sidering this  matter,  and  with  expression  of  high  re- 
gard, I  am, 

Most  sincerely  yours, 

B.  Mathieu. 
Hon.  Charles  E.  Hughes, 
Secretary  of  State, 
Washington,  D.  C. 


Secretary  of  State  of  United  States  to  Ambassador  of 
Chile  in  United  States. 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  July  19,  1922. 

My  Dear  Mr.  Ambassador  : 

I  have  received  your  note  of  this  date  with  respect 
to  a  point  in  the  interpretation  of  the  clause  that  I 
suggested,  relating  to  the  contingency  of  a  decision 
•by  the  arbitrator  that  a  plebiscite  should  not  be  held. 

This  clause  was  as  follows : 

"It  is  understood  in  the  interest  of  peace  and 
good  order,  that  in  this  event  and  pending  an 
agreement  as  to  the  disposition  of  the  territory, 
the  administrative  organization  of  the  provinces 
shall  not  be  disturbed.' ' 


639 

I  should  hesitate  to  make  any  further  suggestion 
for  reasons  which  I  am  sure  you  will  appreciate,  save 
in  a  further  conference  with  the  Delegates. 

It  seems  to  me,  however,  that  it  may  serve  the 
purpose  you  have  in  view  if  I  send  to  you  a  summary 
prepared  by  Dr.  Rowe  of  the  interview  held  with  Seiior 
Aldunate  and  Dr.  Porras,  in  the  course  of  which  the 
clause  in  question  was  suggested.  It  seems  to  me 
that  what  was  then  said  is  entirely  sufficient  by  way 
of  commentary  upon  the  purpose  and  intent  of  the 
clause. 

With  high  regard,  I  am, 

Very  sincerely  yours, 
Charles  E.  Hughes. 
His  Excellency, 

Senor  Don  Beltran  Mathieu, 
Ambassador  of  Chile. 


Conference  Held  on  July  17,  1922,  Between  Chairmen 
of  the  Chilean  and  Peruvian  Delegations  to  the 
Washington  Conference  and  Secretary  of  State 
of  United  States. 

Conference  held  in  the  Office  of  the  Secretary  of  State 
on  Monday,  July  17,  1922,  at  12  o'clock. 

In  attendance  were : 

The  Secretary  of  State, 

Hon.  Charles  E.  Hughes. 
The  Chairman  of  the  Chilean  Delegation, 

Hon.  Carlos  Aldunate. 
The  Chairman  of  the  Peruvian  Delegation, 

Hon.  Meliton  Porras. 

At  the  request  of  the  Chairman  of  the  two  Delega- 
tions, and  by  invitation  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  Dr. 
Rowe  was  present  and  served  as  interpreter. 


640 

At  the  opening  of  the  Conference  Senor  Aldunate 
informed  the  Secretary  that  the  Conference  had  de- 
cided to  request  the  President  of  the  United  States  to 
serve  as  arbitrator  and  expressed  the  hope  that  the 
President  would  be  willing  to  do  this  very  great  ser- 
vice.   Dr.  Porras  then  expressed  a  similar  request. 

The  Secretary  then  stated  that  he  was  certain  that 
the  President  of  the  United  States  would  be  deeply 
appreciative  of  the  honor  done  him  by  such  selection. 
Although  Secretary  Hughes  had  entertained  the  hope 
that  the  Conference  might  decide  either  upon  a  board 
of  jurists  or  a  single  jurist;  yet,  in  view  of  the  de- 
cision that  had  been  made  he  desired  to  express  his 
appreciation  of  the  confidence  thus  expressed  by  both 
Delegations,  and  would  be  glad  to  advise  the  Pre- 
sident of  the  United  States  to  accept  the  designation. 

Sr.  Aldunate  then  set  forth  the  views  of  the  Chilean 
Delegation  with  reference  to  the  desirability  of  in- 
serting, either  in  the  Protocol,  or  the  Supplementary 
Act,  or  in  a  definite  way  in  the  minutes  *of  the  Con- 
ference, a  statement  to  the  effect  that,  if  the  arbitrator 
should  decide  against  the  holding  of  a  plebiscite,  the 
status  of  possession  of  the  provinces  by  Chile  should 
not  be  disturbed,  and  that  her  right  to  legislate  for 
the  provinces  and  to  appoint  administrative  author- 
ities should  not  be  questioned.  He  pointed  out  that  this 
was  the  interpretation  which  both  the  Chilean  Delega- 
tion and  the  Chilean  Government  had  placed  upon  the 
formula  proposed  by  Mr.  Hughes  and  which  they  had 
so  gladly  -accepted.  Without  some  such  declaratory 
statement  he  felt  that  there  was  real  danger  that  Peru 
might  interpret  Clause  "C"  of  the  Supplementary 
Act  to  mean  that,  in  case  the  arbitrator  decide  against 
the  holding  of  a  plebiscite,  the  provinces  should  be 
turned  over  immediately  to  Peru.     He  felt  certain 


641 

that  neither  Dr.  Porras  nor  Dr.  Velarde  would  give 
such  an  interpretation,  as  they  were  fully  acquainted, 
not  only  with  the  letter  but  also  with  the  spirit  of  the 
Clause,  but  he  stated  that  men  come  and  go  and  it  was 
impossible  to  foresee  who  would  give  interpretation 
to  the  Clause  when  the  time  comes  for  its  application. 
He  felt,  furthermore,  that  where  in  Clause  "C"  of 
the  Supplementary  Act  the  two  Governments  agree  to 
"  enter  into  a  discussion  of  the  situation  created  by 
the  decision  of  the  arbitrator, ' '  it  might  be  assumed 
that  the  situation  thus  "created"  is  an  entirely  new 
one  and  that  the  declaratory  words  are  intended  to 
overcome  such  a  presumption.  He  deemed  it  neces- 
sary therefore,  in  order  to  avoid  subsequent  contro- 
versies to  include  a  declaratory  statement  that  would 
remove  all  doubt  from  the  situation  and  that  his 
Government  regarded  such  a  declaratory  statement  as 
indispensable. 

Dr.  Porras  then  stated  that,  in  his  opinion,  the  in- 
troduction of  the  declaratory  words  proposed  by  the 
Chilean  Delegation  would  mean  a  transformation  of 
the  formula  proposed  by  Secretary  Hughes  into  some- 
thing that  was  not  intended  at  the  time  that  it  was 
proposed  and  when  it  was  accepted  by  the  Peruvian 
Government.  Dr.  Porras  emphasized  the  fact  that 
he  regarded  the  declaration  proposed  by  the  Chilean 
Delegation  as  unnecessary,  because  such  declarations 
are  superfluous  where  there  is  no  change  in  the  person 
or  entity  in  occupation  or  possession.  Furthermore, 
he  regarded  such  declaration  as  derogatory  to  Peru 
and  likely  to  wound  national  sensibilities. 

To  this  observation  Sr.  Aldunate  made  a  brief  re- 
ply, stating  that  there  was  no  thought  in  proposing 
these  additional  words  to  change  the  formula  proposed 
by  Secretary  Hughes,  but  simply  to  clarify  the  situ- 
ation so  as  to  avoid  subsequent  controversies. 


642 

Secretary  Hughes  began  by  stating  that  he  wished 
to  congratulate  both  Delegations  on  the  splendid  prog- 
ress that  had  been  made,  and  that  it  was  exceed- 
ingly gratifying  to  find  that  they  had  reached  agree- 
ment on  all  important  points  and  that  the  point  as  to 
which  there  was  disagreement  at  the  present  time 
was  one  of  rather  secondary  importance.  He  deemed 
it  a  matter  of  very  great  moment  that  the  final  agree- 
ment when  reached  should  not  only  express  the  actual 
understanding  of  the  two  Governments,  but,  also 
should  be  so  worded  as  to  avoid  future  differences  and 
controversies ;  that  he  had  thought  over  the  matter 
very  carefully  and  felt  that  it  should  be  clear  that  in 
case  the  arbitrator  should  decide  against  the  holding 
of  a  plebiscite  that  Chile  thereby  acquired  no  new  or 
additional  rights.  On  the  other  hand,  he  deemed  it 
important  that,  pending  the  settlement  as  to  the  final 
disposition  of  the  territory,  the  administrative  organ- 
ization of  the  provinces  should  not  be  disrupted  and 
that,  in  the  interest  of  peace  and  good  order,  it  should 
be  made  clear  that  there  would  be  no  such  disruption. 
It  is  evident,  the  Secretary  said,  that  if  the  decision 
of  the  arbitrator  should  be  against  the  holding  of 
a  plebiscite,  then  the  procedure  provided  for  in  the 
Treaty  for  the  final  transferase  of  title  can  no  longer 
be  made  operative.  This  fact,  therefore,  involves  the 
necessity  of  negotiations  in  order  to  determine  the 
final  disposition  of  the  territory. 

The  Secretary  then  went  on  to  say  that  he  fully 
appreciated  that  both  parties  were  somewhat  appre- 
hensive as  to  the  future.  He  could  see  that  Chile  was 
somewhat  apprehensive  lest  Peru  might  say  that  Chile 
should  relinquish  all  control  of  the  provinces  prior  to 
the  negotiations  stipulated  in  the  agreement,  and,  on 
the  other  hand,  he  could  see  that  Peru  was  apprehen- 


643 

sive  lest  Chile  should  remain  in  possession  for  an  in- 
definite, and  possibly  prolonged,  period.  He  deemed 
it  important,  therefore,  to  avoid  language  which 
might  give  rise  to  embarrassing  and  irritating  claims 
on  either  side,  and  to  find  a  formula  which  would 
avoid  contention.  He  was  endeavoring  to  look  at  the 
question  from  the  standpoint  of  both  countries,  with 
a  view  to  suggesting  something  that  might  allay  the 
apprehensions  of  both.  He  stated,  furthermore,  that 
he  deemed  it  beyond  his  province  to  discuss  where 
the  statement  which  he  was  about  to  suggest  was 
to  appear,  as  that  was  a  matter  for  the  two  Delegations 
to  determine. 

In  explaining  the  suggestion  that  he  was  about  to 
make,  the  Secretary  stated  that  he  had  placed  at  the 
beginning  of  the  statement  the  reason  for  the  sug- 
gestion in  the  form  as  submitted,  namely,  the  in- 
troductory words: 

"In  the  interest  of  peace  and  good  order.' ' 

Having  done  this,  it  is  made  clear  that  the  adminis- 
trative organization  of  the  provinces  should  not  be 
disturbed  pending  an  agreement  as  to  the  disposition 
of  the  territory. 

The  complete  suggestion,  therefore,  which  he  de- 
sired to  submit  for  the  consideration  of  the  Delegates 
is  as  follows: 

"It  is  understood,  in  the  interest  of  peace  and 
good  order,  that  in  this  event  and  pending  an 
agreement  as  to  the  disposition  of  the  territory, 
the  administrative  organization  of  the  provinces 
shall  not  be  disturbed.' ' 


644 

Proceedings  of  the  Chilean-Peruvian  Conference  Held 
in  Washington,  D.  C.  Dated  on  July  20,  1922. 

[Translation.] 

The  Plenipotentiaries  of  Chile  and  Peru  having 
again  come  together,  to  take  into  consideration  the 
conciliatory  principle  suggested  by  the  Secretary  of 
State  of  the  United  States  and  already  accepted  by 
their  respective  Governments,  agreed  to  formulate  in 
the  following  terms  the  draft  of  arbitration  protocol: 

PROTOCOL  OF  ARBITRATION. 

Assembled  in  Washington,  D.  C,  pursuant  to  the  in- 
vitation of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  of 
America  for  the  purpose  of  reaching  a  solution  of  the 
long  standing  controversy  with  respect  to  the  unful- 
filled provisions  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  of  October  ,20, 
1883,  the  undersigned  representatives  of  Peru  and 
Chile,  to  wit : 

Don  Carlos  Aldunate  and  Don  Luis  Izquierdo,  En- 
voys Extraordinary  and  Ministers  Plenipotentiary  of 
Chile  on  Special  Mission ;  and 

Don  Meliton  F:  Porras  and  Don  Hernan  Velarde, 
Envoys  Extraordinary  and  Ministers  Plenipotentiary 
of  Peru  on  Special  Mission; 

After  exchanging  their  respective  full  powers,  have 
agreed  upon  the  following : 

Article  1.  It  is  hereby  recorded  that  the  only  diffi- 
culties arising  out  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace,  regarding 
which  the  two  countries  have  not  been  able  to  reach  an 
agreement,  are  the  questions  arising  out  of  the  unful- 
filled stipulations  of  Article  III  of  said  Treaty. 

Article  2.  The  difficulties  referred  to  in  the  pre- 
ceding article  will  be  submitted  to  the  arbitration  of 
the  President  of  the  United  States  of  America  who 


645 

shall  decide  them  without  appeal  after  hearing  the 
parties  and  taking  into  consideration  the  arguments 
and  evidence  which  they  may  present.  The  times  and 
the  procedure  shall  be  determined  by  the  arbitrator. 

Article  3.  The  present  Protocol  shall  be  submitted 
for  approval  to  the  respective  Governments  and  the 
ratifications  shall  be  exchanged  in  Washington 
through  the  diplomatic  representatives  of  Chile  and 
Peru  within  the  maximum  period  of  three  months. 

Signed  and  sealed  in  duplicate  in  Washington,  D.  C, 
the  twentieth  of  July,  One  Thousand,  Nine  Hundred 
and  Twenty-two. 

With  regard  to  the  notes  which  were  to  determine 
the  scope  of  the  stipulated  arbitration,  it  was  agreed 
that  they  should  be  substituted  by  a  Supplementary 
Agreement  which  shall  be  regarded  as  an  integral 
part  of  the  Protocol. 

The  Supplementary  Agreement  was  formulated  in 
the  following  terms : 

SUPPLEMENTARY  ACT.      . 

In  order  to  determine  with  precision  the  scope  of 
the  arbitration  provided  for  in  Article  2  of  the  Pro- 
tocol signed  on  this  date,  the  undersigned  agree  to 
place  on  record  hereby  the  following  points: 

First.  The  following  question,  raised  by  Peru  at  the 
session  of  the  Conference  held  on  May  27th  last,  is 
included  in  the  arbitration: 

"For  the  purpose  of  determining  the  manner 
in  which  the  stipulations  of  Article  III  of  the 
Treaty  of  Ancon  shall  be  fulfilled  there  shall  be 
submitted  to  arbitration  the  question  whether,  in 
the  present  circumstances,  the  plebiscite  shall  or 
shall  not  be  held. ' ' 


646 

The  Government  of  Chile,  on  its  part,  may  present 
to  the  arbitrator  all  the  arguments  that  it  may  deem 
necessary  to  its  case. 

Second,  In  case  that  it  is  decided  that  the  plebi- 
scite shall  be  held,  the  arbitrator  is  empowered  to  de- 
termine the  conditions  under  which  it  shall  be  held. 

Third.  If  the  arbitrator  should  decide  that  the 
plebiscite  shall  not  be  held,  both  parties,  at  the  re- 
quest of  either  of  them,  shall  discuss  the  situation 
created  by  this  decision. 

It  is  understood,  in  the  interest  of  peace  and  of 
good  order,  that,  in  this  event,  and  pending  an  agree- 
ment as  to  the  disposition  of  the  territory,  the  ad- 
ministrative organization  of  the  provinces  shall  not 
be  disturbed. 

Fourth.  The  two  Governments  shall  solicit,  in  case 
that  they  should  not  reach  an  agreement,  the  good 
offices  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  of 
America,  in  order  that  an  agreement  may  be  reached. 

Fifth.  The  pending  claims  regarding  Tarata  and 
Chilcaya  likewise  are  included  in  the  arbitration,  sub- 
ject to  the  determination  of  the  final  fate  of  the  ter- 
ritory to  which  Article  III  of  the  said  Treaty  refers. 

This  Act  is  an  integral  part  of  the  Protocol  to  which 
it  refers. 

Signed  and  sealed  in  duplicate  in  Washington,  D.  C, 
the  Twentieth  of  July,  One  Thousand,  Nine  Hundred 
and  Twenty-two. 

The  Delegates  of  Chile  declared  that,  in  accordance 
with  their  instructions  and  because  it  was  a  question 
of  matters  having  to  do  with  the  Treaty  of  Ancon — 
and  such  matters  ought  to  be  considered  in  the  Con- 
ference in  course,  in  order  that  no  point  concerning 
the  Treaty  might  remain  pending, — they  felt  obliged 
to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  debt  contracted 


647 

by  the  Peruvian  Government  in  1883  was  not  yet  can- 
celled ;  and  that  it  was  necessary  to  ratify  and  put  into 
effect  the  Convention  signed  at  Lima  on  April  5,  1897, 
for  the  purpose  of  organizing  an  arbitral  tribunal 
charged  with  the  settlement  of  the  claims  to  which 
Article  XII  of  the  Treaty  refers. 

The  Delegates  of  Peru  stated  that  their  Govern- 
ment was  disposed  to  ratify  the  Convention  to  which 
reference  had  been  made,  and  to  cancel  the  debt.  They 
called  attention,  however,  to  the  liquidation  of  the 
guano  account  of  Lobos,  ceded  to  Peru  by  Article  X 
of  the  same  Treaty,  by  reason  whereof  they  felt  that 
both  debts  should  be  simultaneously  liquidated. 

The  Chilean  Delegates  declared,  for  their  part,  that 
their  Government  would  not  have  the  slightest  reason 
to  refrain  from  liquidation  of  the  guano  business  of 
which  mention  had  been  made. 

Senor  Porras  submitted  the  following  proposition 
which  could  be  incorporated  in  a  special  protocol: 

"The  Contracting  Parties  agree  to  constitute 
a  Mixed  Arbitral  Tribunal,  to  be  presided  over 
by  an  arbitrator  nominated  by  the  President  of 
the  United  States  of  America,  who  shall  be 
charged  with  the  settlement  by  law  of  the  pe- 
cuniary claims  submitted  to  such  tribunal  by  citi- 
zens of  either  country,  for  damages  suffered  to 
their  persons  or  property,  because  of  popular  agi- 
tation occurring  in  Peru  and  in  Chile  since  Jan- 
uary 1,  1910,  in  which  agitation  there  has  been 
discernible  the  responsibility  of  the  respective 
authorities,  as  well  as  much  damage  attributable 
to  the  direct  and  unwarranted  acts  of  these  same 
authorities. ' 1 

The  Chilean  Delegation  declined  to  accept  this  prop- 
osition at  once,  declaring  that  this  point  lay  outside 
the  functions  of  the  Conference,  but  agreeing,  in  ac- 


648 

cordance  with  instructions  received  from  their  Govern- 
ment, that  the  idea  was  acceptable,  and  would  be  given 
due  consideration  as  soon  as  there  were  persons  em- 
powered by  both  Governments  to  deal  with  the  mat- 
ter. 

The  negotiations  with  which  the  Conference  was 
charged  having  thus  happily  terminated,  the  Dele- 
gates of  Peru  and  Chile  proceeded  to  sign  the  cor- 
responding documents  and  proceedings. 

Signed  in  duplicate  in  Washington,  D.  C,  July  20, 
1922. 

Caklos  Aldunate, 
l.  izquiekdo, 

Delegates  Plenipotentiary  of  Chile, 

M.    F.    PoRRAS, 

Hern  an  Velarde, 

Delegates  Plenipotentiary  of  Peru, 

Alejandro  Alvarez, 

Counselor  of  the  Chilean  Delegation, 

Solon  Polo, 

Counselor  of  the  Peruvian  Delegation, 

Jorje  Silva, 
Luis  E.  Feliu  H., 

Secretaries  of  the  Chilean  Delegation, 

G.  N.  Aramburu, 

J.  A.  DE  BlTENAVISTA, 

Secretaries  of  the  Peruvian  Delegation. 


649 

Speech  of  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile, 
Delivered  in  the  Session  of  the  Senate,  July  20, 
1922. 

[Translation.] 

Se.  Barros  Jarpa  (Minister  of  Foreign  Rela- 
tions)— I  propose,  Mr.  President,  to  perform  the  very 
pleasant  duty — and  this  time  I  am  greatly  honored — 
of  informing  the  Honorable  Senate  of  the  course  which 
the  Chilean-Peruvian  Conferences  at  Washington  have 
taken,  and  of  the  results,  satisfactory  for  the  interest 
and  spirit  of  harmony,  of  the  cooperation  and  cordial- 
ity which  the  policies  of  the  present  Government  in- 
duced, which  have  been  reached  after  diligent  and 
slow  deliberation. 

If  I  wanted  to  characterize,  in  one  phrase,  the 
foreign  policy  which  it  has  been  my  duty  to  carry  out 
for  the  Government,  I  would  have  to  say  that  it  has 
been  the  result  of  a  profound  love  for  the  peace  and 
harmony  of  the  American  Continent,  and  of  a  con- 
scious and  firm  trust  in  the  legitimacy  of  our  rights 
and  in  the  justice  of  our  cause  in  the  old  controversy 
which  we  are  carrying  on  with  the  Republic  of  Peru. 

Aside  from  the  elemental  considerations  which  ob- 
ligated the  Government  of  Chile  to  some  day  clear  its 
international  horizon,  in  order  to  give  ample  devel- 
opment to  its  moral  and  material  progress  during  a 
time  of  peace;  aside  from  the  necessity  of  eliminating 
a  factor  which  was  being  earned  out  cleverly  by  our 
adversaries  and  was  undermining  our  international 
reputation, — causes  of  political  significance,  and  in 
satisfaction  of  the  national  desire  which  has  been 
clearly  shown  to  favor  the  termination  of  the  old  liti- 
gation with  Peru,  influenced  the  Government  of  Chile 
to  take  the  initiative  with  that  countrv  in  direct  ne- 


650 

gotiations  which  they  could  carry  on  with  us,  as  rapid- 
ly as  possible,  until  adjustment  by  an  agreement  which 
would  be  ample  to  insure  peace  in  this  part  of  South 
America. 

There  has  never  been  counted  as  being  among  the 
policies  of  this  Government,  that  of  letting  the  time 
pass  quietly  by  without  solving  the  difficulty  which 
the  third  Clause  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  left  pending. 
Passive  action  as  opposed  to  the  necessity  of  deciding* 
a  question,  which  has  been  characteristic  of  some  peri- 
ods of  our  administration,  was  not,  in  my  judgment, 
the  advisable  attitude  at  these  particular  times  in 
which,  with  the  passing  of  the  years,  there  was  ap- 
parently growing  up  a  real  accumulation  of  problems 
which  are  rightly  concentrated  on  this  region  of  Tacna 
and  Arica  which  remains  without  definite  sovereignty. 

That  which  previously  was  the  simple  desire  on  the 
part  of  the  different  Governments  of  Peru  to  fulfill 
Clause  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  was  being  changed, 
without  any  other  prior  events  than  the  mere  passing 
of  the  time,  into  the  desire  to  make  ineffective  this 
third  Clause, — to  make  ineffective  the  entire  Treaty; 
to  revise  the  same,  and  to  wholly  recover  Tarapaca 
and  Tacna  and  Arica,  without  a  plebiscite  and  without 
indemnity. 

That  which  previously  was  the  simple  desire  of 
Bolivia  to  be  able  to  freely  carry  on  her  commerce  on 
the  Pacific,  which  was  amply  provided  for  in  the 
Treaty  of  1904,  without  any  other  cause  than  the  mere 
passing  of  time,  was  being  changed,  little  by  little, 
into  an  aspiration  of  Bolivia  to  a  port  of  her  own  on 
our  coast,  and  soon  proclaiming  the  rights  of  the  Ee- 
public  of  the  Altiplano,  to  incorporate  in  her  geo- 
graphical make-up  the  port  of  Arica. 


651 

Who  can  foretell  how  many  more  problems  will  later 
complicate  the  fulfillment  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  if 
time  is  allowed  to  pass  by,  thereby  constantly  weaken- 
ing the  distinctness  of  our  rights  ? 

When  we  began  that  which  has  been  called  the  dip- 
lomatic offensive  of  December  12,  1921,  we  had  little 
hope  of  securing  reasonable  terms  for  a  direct  solution 
of  the  dispute  with  the  Government  of  Peru.  A  few 
days  before  we  had  received  the  last  official  publica- 
tion of  the  Chancellery  of  Peru,  whose  fundamental 
finding  of  the  cardinal  points  appeared  drawn  up  to- 
gether in  these  terms: 

"For  the  reasons  contained  in  this  explanation 
there  is  clearly  and  definitively  shown: 

"First — That  the  Treaty  of  Peace  signed  by 
Peru  and  Chile  on  October  20,  1883,  ought  to  be 
revised,  and  the  province  of  Tarapaca  uncondi- 
tionally returned  to  Peru. 

"Second — That  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  ought  as  well  to  be  returned  to  Peru,  with- 
out any  plebiscite  and  without  any  kind  of  in- 
demnification or  reward  on  her  part. ' ' 

The  question  being  looked  upon  in  these  terms  in 
Lima,  it  is  evident  that  there  was  little  hope  of  coming 
to  an  understanding. 

During  the  diplomatic  controversy  of  December  of 
last  year,  the  Peruvian  proposition,  although  it  was 
reduced  to  more  reasonable  conditions,  was  kept  up 
in  terms  which  still  rendered  any  plan  for  an  agree- 
ment difficult. 

In  fact,  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations,  in  his 
note  of  December  17th„  maintained  that  the  plebiscite 
was  now  impossible  and  that  it  was  necessary  "to 


652 

jointly  submit  the  entire  question  of  the  South-Pacific 
to  arbitration. ' ' 

In  his  note  of  December  24th  he  held  that  we  had 
violated  almost  all  the  provisions  of  the  Treaty  of 
Ancon,  and  he  maintained  that,  in  his  opinion,  the 
arbitration  should  take  into  account  all  of  those 
violations. 

"As  far  as  Peru  is  concerned,' '  says  the  note 
of  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relation,  Sr.  Salomon, 
of  December  31,  1921,  "It  is  not  only  the  plebi- 
scite provided  for  in  the  Treaty  of  Peace  of  1883 
which  Chile  has  failed  to  fulfill;  and  if  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Your  Excellency  does  not  believe  this 
to  be  true,  the  way  to  obtain  an  honorable  and 
satisfactory  solution  is  open  by  resorting  to  an 
arbitrator  who  may  decide  whether  the  Treaty 
has  been  violated  or  not  and  the  manner  in  which 
such  violations  are  to  be  remedied,  as  stated,  in 
my  communication  of  the  23d  of  this  month." 

The  negotiation  having  thus  been  deviated  from 
our  fundamental  purpose,  we  found  ourselves  forced  to 
discontinue  our  telegraphic  discourse  with  the  Govern- 
ment of  Peru.  Happily,  the  noble  desire  for  peace 
which  we  had  shown  by  this  initiative  was  duly  ap- 
preciated by  the  Government  of  the  United  States, 
which,  exercising  its  good  offices,  invited  Chile  and 
Peru  to  begin  negotiations  for  the  purpose  of  solving 
their  differences  arising  out  of  the  unfulfilled  pro- 
visions of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon. 

I  must  make  it  as  clear  as  I  am  authorized  to  do 
that  in  the  sessions  of  the  Washington  Conferences 
their  acts  cannot  depart  from  a  respect  for  the  pro- 
visions of  the  Treaty  of  1883. 

We  accepted  the  invitation  of  the  United  States,  and 
gave  there,  in  the  course  of  the  months  of  deliberation 


653 

of  the  Conferences,  all  our  best  efforts  for  arriving  at 
a  solution. 

What  is  the  first  result  of  this  agreement? 

It  is  that  which  is  set  forth  in  the  first  Article  of 
the  Protocol  agreed  to  in  Washington. 

As  to  the  entire  recovery  of  Tarapaca,  Tacna  and 
Arica,  without  a  plebiscite  or  indemnity;  as  to  the 
violation  of  almost  all  of  the  provisions  of  the  Treaty; 
as  to  the  submitting  of  the  South-Pacific  question  to 
arbitration,  we  have  arrived  at  a  very  simple  formula 
which  is  contained  in  these  terms: 

It  is  hereby  recorded  that  the  only  difficulties 
arising  out  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  regarding 
which  the  two  countries  have  not  been  able  to 
reach  an  agreement,  are  the  questions  arising  out 
of  the  unfulfilled  stipulations  of  Article  III  of 
said  Treaty. 

This  fact  alone  should  be  sufficient  to  show  that  this 
negotiation  has  been  very  fortunate,  in  that  it  has  been 
able  to  remove  from  the  problem  the  complications 
which  were  brought  in  by  political  passion,  the  ir- 
ritation of  hatred  among  the  people,  and  the  danger- 
ous attempts  of  some  men  to  better  their  personal  po- 
sitions, sounding  the  alarm,  while  boasting  of  patriot- 
ism, and  proclaiming  the  humiliation  of  the  opponent 
of  war  to  be  a  necessity,  without  whose  damage,  in 
this  last  instance,  it  might  be  possible  to  restore  all 
without  this  assistance. 

The  negotiations  in  Washington  continued,  until  the 
time  when  Peru  made  her  proposal  of  the  27th  of  May, 
which  reads  as  follows : 

"  There  would  be  submitted  to  the  arbitrator 
as  the  essential  point  that  is  the  subject  of  our 


654 

discussions  the  following:  for  the  purpose  of  de- 
termining the  manner  in  which  the  stipulations 
of  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  shall  be  ful- 
filled there  shall  be  submitted  to  arbitration  the 
question  whether,  in  the  present  circumstances, 
the  plebiscite  shall  or  shall  not  be  held." 

If  it  is  not  to  be  held,  to  which  country  will  be- 
long the  final  dominion  of  Tacna  and  Arica  and 
under  what  conditions? 

If  it  is  to  be  held,  under  what  conditions  shall 
the  plebiscite  take  place? 
I 
This  proposition  was  objected  to  immediately  by  our 
Delegation,  because  it  expressly  and  clearly  departed 
from  the  fulfillment  of  the  Convention  of  1883,  which 
was  the  basis  of  the  negotiations. 

In  effect,  the  lack  of  legal  foundation  of  the  plebi- 
scite having  been  declared,  an  arbitrator  would  have 
to  say  to  whom  these  territories  belong  and  under 
what  conditions,  or  that  is,  he,  the  arbitrator,  who 
would  be  created  as  an  authority  superior  to  the 
Treaty  having  the  right  to  declare  one  of  its  stipula- 
tions unenforceable,  and  also  wTould  be  authorized  to 
apply  it  as  he  pleased. 

For  our  part,  we  consider  that  the  third  Article  of 
the  Treaty  of  Ancon  contains  three  legal  elements  of 
fundamental  order,  which  can  exist  separately.  The 
first  is  that  which  gives  Tacna  and  Arica  to  Chilean 
sovereignty — to  Chilean  legislation  and  authority  as  is 
stated  in  the  Treaty.  The  second  limits  this  sov- 
ereignty with  a  condition  that  a  plebiscite  shall  decide 
whether  those  territories  remain  under  the  dominion 
and  sovereignty  of  Chile,  or  go  back  to  form  a  part  of 
the  Peruvian  territory.  And  the  third  is  that  which 
fixes  an  indemnity  of  ten  million  silver  soles  in  favor 
of  that  country  which  definitively  loses  her  rights  in 
those  territories. 


655 

The  plebiscite  is  a  condition — it  is  the  nature  of  con- 
ditions that  they  may  or  may  not  happen — but  the  fact 
that  the  condition  fails,  where  it  is  a  limitation  to 
the  dominion,  does  not  have  the  force  of  wiping  out 
the  dominion;  but  rather,  as  in  the  case  of  a  trust 
(as  the  French  treaty  writers  called  the  plebiscites 
stipulated  in  the  Treaty  of  Versailles),  the  fact  that 
the  condition  fails  completes  the  dominion  in  which 
it  was  contained. 

In  this  understanding,  then,  the  Peruvian  proposal 
of  May  27th  went  outside  the  scope  of  action  of  the 
Conferences,  in  that  it  authorized  an  arbitrator  to 
make  disposition  of  the  territories  on  terms  which 
were  different  from  those  by  which  the  Treaty  had 
disposed  of  the  same. 

This  dead-lock  having  arisen  in  the  negotiations, 
our  Ambassador  communicated  the  situation  to  the 
Secretary  of  State,  and  closed  his  communication  by 
saying  that : 

"the  Embassy  of  Chile,  in  testifying  to  the  fu- 
tility of  the  efforts  of  the  Delegation  of  its  coun- 
try to  arrive  at  this  agreement  sought,  renews  in 
the  name  of  its  Government  the  purpose  of  accept- 
ing any  formula  for  a  settlement  that  will  be  in 
conformity  with  the  fulfillment  of  the  Treaty  and 
with  the  terms  of  President  Harding's  invita- 
tion.'' 

Forty-eight  hours  had  not  passed  before  the  Secre- 
tary of  State  understood  the  Chilean  point  of  view  in 
these  negotiations,  when  he  called  Sr.  Mathieu  in 
order  to  give  him  a  proposal  which,  in  his  judgment, 
was  drawn  up  in  terms  which  would  be  acceptable 
to  Chile.    That  proposition  was  the  following: 


656 

"For  the  purpose  of  bringing  about  a  solution 
of  the  long  standing  controversy  between  the  two 
countries  having  to  do' with  the  unfulfilled  pro- 
visions of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  they  agree  to  sub- 
mit to  arbitration  the  questions  arising  out  of  the 
unfulfilled  stipulations  of  Article  III." 

Mr.  Hughes,  besides,  suggested  an  exchange  of  notes 
setting  forth  that  the  parties  do  not  agree  that  the 
decision  of  the  arbitrator,  if  it  should  hold  the  failure 
of  a  foundation  for  the  plebiscite,  would  change  the 
actual  status  of  the  territory  under  discussion,  which 
would  be  independently  determined  by  the  parties  in 
negotiations  which  they  may  later  see  fit  to  open. 

This  proposition  was  presented  to  us  after  having 
been  studied  by  our  Ambassador  and  our  Delegates 
in  Washington,  and  accompanying  its  transmittal  was 
their  enthusiastic  recommendation  that  it  be  uncon- 
ditionally accepted  without  delay. 

We  looked  upon  the  question  in  the  same  way  as 
Messrs.  Mathieu,  Aldunate  and  Izquierdo,  and  im- 
mediately authorized  them  to  give  to  the  Secretary  of 
State  their  approval  with  regard  to  the  conditions  of 
his  proposal. 

Here  we  considered  that,  there  having  been  elimi- 
nated the  only  point  which  placed  the  fate  of  Tacna 
and  Arica  in  the  hands  of  a  foreign  arbitrator,  sub- 
mitting the  popular  referendum  for  the  decision  of  a 
third  party,  and  expressly  recognizing  the  fact  that 
the  declaration  of  the  lack  of  foundation  for  the  plebi- 
scite did  not  alter  the  rights  which,  up  to  the  present 
time,  we  have  exercised  in  these  territories,  and  which 
are  given  us  by  the  Treaty,  the  proposition  was  ac- 
ceptable and  thus  it  was  accepted. 

The  Government  of  Peru,  as  the  Honorable  Senate 
knows,  after  nineteen  days  of  deliberation,  and  after 


657 

having  attempted  to  change  the  Hughes  proposal,  with 
a  view  to  later  agreeing  upon  an  obligatory  authority 
which  would  decide  questions  that  might  remain  un- 
settled if  the  failure  of  the  plebiscite  be  declared, 
finally  consented  to  accept  the  Hughes  proposition, 
without  reservation. 

In  order  to  bring  about  this  acceptance  the  Secretary 
of  State,  who  had  expressly  declined  to  transmit  the 
Peruvian  hints  which  altered  the  terms  of  his  pro- 
posal, sent  to  our  Ambassador  the  hint  that  Chile 
might  declare  that  it  would  accept  the  good  offices  of 
the  United  States,  if  there  should  be  need  for  them  in 
the  later  negotiations  already  referred  to. 

When  consulted  by  our  representatives  in  Washing- 
ton in  regard  to  this  point,  we  made  an  immediate  re- 
ply, saying  that,  by  virtue  of  the  third  and  sixth  Ar- 
ticles of  the  Hague  Conventions  of  1899  and  1907,  for 
the  pacific  settlement  of  international  disputes,  good 
offices  were  an  institution  of  mere  friendly  advice, 
without  any  binding  force,  which  proceeded  with,  yet 
did  not  settle  them,  and  which  might  be  exercised  by 
the  country  that  deemed  it  proper  to  offer  them,  and, 
consequently,  that  we  could  not  defeat  a  proposition 
which  satisfied  us  so  well,  by  declining  to  accept  a 
peaceful  appeal  of  such  unquestionable  origin,  for 
future  negotiations  of  remote  possibility. 

The  Government  knew  that  a  situation  of  extraordi- 
nary importance  to  the  country  had  been  presented, 
and,  even  when  it  was  confident  that  it  had  interpreted 
the  national  sentiment  at  all  times,  it  deliberated  with 
the  most  eminent  and  learned  public  men  which  the 
country  has  to  rely  on  in  regard  to  the  report  of  the 
negotiations.  There  are  many  Senators  who  are  listen- 
ing to  me  who,  through  the  President  of  the  Republic, 
with  documents  which  they  have  seen,  or  through  me, 


658 

are  acquainted  with,  and  approve,  with  patriotic  satis- 
faction, of  the  state  to  which  those  negotiations  have 
reached  up  to  the  present  time. 

The  agreement  having  been  decided  upon  in  princi- 
ple, with  regard  to  the  Hughes  proposal,  by  the  Peru- 
vian approval,  and  having  in  mind  the  fact  that  this 
proposal  was  not  drafted  in  exact  or  definite  terms,  our 
Delegates  asked  authority  to  renew  friendly  confer- 
ences with  the  Peruvian  Delegates  and  to  agree  to  the 
definitive  drawing  up  of  the  results  agreed  upon. 

A  few  days  ago  they  sent  me  that  compilation,  which 
in  their  judgment  was  satisfactory  to  our  interests 
and  rights;  but  when  embodying  in  the  record  of  the 
session  the  principle  which  in  our  judgment,  is  funda- 
mental in  the  Hughes  proposal,  namely,  that  the  plebi- 
scite having  been  declared  by  the  arbitrator  to  be  un- 
enforcible,  the  condition  of  our  Government  in  those 
territories  shall  not  be  altered  in  any  way,  Mr.  Porras 
said  that  it  was  not  now  necessary  to  include  such  a 
declaration  because  the  silence  of  the  Protocol  took 
that  as  understood.  We  thought  that  it  was  absolutely 
essential  that  in  the  documents  constituting  the  agree- 
ment, the  express  declaration  of  limiting  the  powers  of 
the  arbitrator  should  appear  in  case  the  plebiscite 
should  be  declared  to  be  unenf  orcible,  instead  of  a  mere 
declaration  of  principle  on  this  point,  so  that  he  would 
not  be  empowered  to  assume  the  authority  to  supple- 
ment the  Treaty  and  altering,  in  any  way,  the  condi- 
tions under  which  we  exercise  dominion  there,  by  vir- 
tue of  the  terms  of  the  Pact  of  Ancon. 

The  Government  of  Chile  had  reason  to  believe  that 
this  point  had  been  and  is  the  fundamental  character- 
istic of  the  Hughes  proposal ;  so  that  it  had  no  difficulty 
in  giving  authority  to  its  Delegates,  with  the  under- 
standing that  the  two  parties  appealed  to  the  Depart- 


659 

ment  of  State  for  the  purpose  of  asking  the  opinion  of 
Mr.  Hughes  as  to  whether  or  not  it  was  indispensible 
to  record  the  idea  to  which  the  difficulty  in  question 
referred. 

Messrs.  Porras  and  Aldunate  having  been  called  one 
day  by  the  Secretary  of  State,  in  the  presence  of  the 
Director  of  the  Pan  American  Union,  Mr.  Leo  S.  Rowe, 
Mr.  Hughes,  who  already  was  aware  of  the  difference, 
through  the  memorandums  submitted  to  him  by  both 
Delegations  gave  to  them  a  verbal  explanation  of  his 
point  of  view  and  concluded  by  submitting  to  them  a 
proposal,  which  I  take,  together  with  the  reasons, 
from  the  first  telegram  which  was  received  from  the 
Delegation  on  this  point: 

'  *  Second — In  a  meeting  today  in  the  office  of  the 
Secretary  of  State,  at  which  Aldunate,  Porras  and 
Rowe  were  present,  Hughes  made  a  verbal  expla- 
nation in  which  he  indicated  that  his  purpose  was 
to  propose  a  drawing  up  of  terms  which  would 
avoid  the  two  difficulties :  (a)  That  the  declaration 
of  the  unenforcibleness  of  the  plebiscite  might 
change  the  status  of  the  territory,  thereby  damag- 
ing the  interests  of  Chile ;  and  (b)  That  this  decla- 
ration might  be  interpreted  as  a  new  title  vested 
in  Chile,  damaging  the  interests  of  Peru. 

' '  Third — The  English  text  of  the  draft  of  terms 
proposed  by  Hughes  literally  reads  as  follows : 
'It  is  understood,  in  the  interest  of  peace  and  good 
order,  that  in  this  event  and  pending  an  agreement 
as  to  the  disposition  of  the  territory,  the  adminis- 
trative organization  of  the  provinces  shall  not  be 
disturbed. ' 

"Fourth — The  literal  translation  is  this:  'Es 
entendido,  en  el  interes  de  la  paz  y  buen  orden, 
que  en  este  caso  y  pendiente  un  acuerdo  acerca  de 
la  disposicion  del  territorio,  la  organizacion  ad- 
ministrativa  de  las  provincias  no  sera  pertur- 
bada.'  " 


660 

In  a  few  moments  the  Honorable  Senate,  in  secret 
session,  will  know  the  instructions  which  our  Delegates 
had  on  these  fundamental  points. 

I  had  no  doubt,  knowing  our  Delegates  as  I  do,  and 
having  appreciated  the  brilliant  and  diligent  work 
which  they  have  performed  during  the  course  of  these 
negotiations,  that  the  understanding  as  to  the  un- 
changeability  of  our  rights  in  Tacna  and  Arica,  in  the 
event  of  the  unenforcibleness  of  the  plebiscite,  al- 
though it  appeared  to  be  clearly  included  in  the  pro- 
posal, was  to  be  guaranteed  in  satisfactory  terms  for 
the  defense  of  our  rights. 

Nevertheless,  proceeding  with  the  highest  aims 
which  I  have  had  in  this  entire  negotiation,  I  noticed 
the  anxiety  that  had  arisen  in  congressional  circles 
where  the  last  terms  suggested  by  Mr.  Hughes  were 
deemed  to  detract  from  and  lessen  the  rights  which 
grew  out  of  the  Treaty  of  1883  in  favor  of  Chile. 

The  Delegates'  instructions  in  regard  to  this,  I  re- 
peat, were  very  explicit,  and  perhaps  it  was  because 
of  this  that  they  did  not  especially  refer  to  the  point 
which  has  been  the  basis  of  all  the  negotiations,  and 
which  they  could  consider  closed,  in  the  telegram  giv- 
ing me  an  account  of  this  suggestion.  Nevertheless, 
to  satisfy  the  desires  expressed  by  my  honored  friend, 
Senator  Rivera,  I  immediately  sent  a  telegram  to  the 
Delegates  informing  them  of  the  anxiety  which  existed 
in  the  Chilean  Congress  in  regard  to  this  last  proposal, 
and  telling  them  that  if  the  principal  idea  of  the  nego- 
tiations had  not  been  well  established,  they  should  re- 
frain from  signing  it. 

Under  date  of  yesterday,  in  view  of  the  anxiety 
which  had  arisen  here  because  of  the  defect  in  the  re- 
port of  the  Delegates,  they  supplied  the  deficiency  and 
stated  the  reasons,  which  are  perfectly  conformable 


661 

with  our  policies,  which  Sr.  Aldunate  had  had  for  ex- 
pressly and  immediately  accepting  the  proposal  sug- 
gested by  the  Secretary  of  State. 

It  is  because  of  this  that,  day  before  yesterday  hav- 
ing sent  the  Delegates  a  telegram  to  the  effect  that  they 
should  refrain  from  signing  if  the  point  as  to  the  un- 
changeability  of  our  rights  in  Tacna  and  Arica,  in  the 
event  that  the  plebiscite  should  be  declared  to  be  un- 
founded by  law,  was  not  perfectly  clear,  and  then  yes- 
terday, after  receiving  the  report  from  the  Delegates 
which  left  me  entirely  satisfied  on  this  point,  I  imme- 
diately sent  them  instructions  to  sign  the  Protocol  and 
the  Record  of  Proceedings. 

Last  night  and  today  I  have  been  receiving  reports 
from  the  Delegates  which  authorize  me  to  confirm,  be- 
fore the  Honorable  Senate,  and  before  the  country, 
that  the  acceptance  of  the  last  suggestion  of  Mr. 
Hughes  has  been  on  the  basis  that  our  rights  in  Tacna 
and  Arica  shall  be  the  same  as  they  are  today  by  virtue 
of  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  after  the  plebi- 
scite is  declared  to  be  unfounded  by  law,  if  such  event 
should  happen,  all  of  which  is  duly  set  forth  in  several 
documents,  fully  asserting  it. 

It  is  essential  for  me  to  state,  in  order  that  the  range 
of  the  last  proposal  may  be  fully  appreciated,  that  the 
word  "administration"  in  English  has  a  much  broader 
meaning  than  the  word  "  administracion  "  in  frequent 
use  in  our  public  law.  "Administration"  says  the 
Standard  Dictionary  of  1901,  "is  the  Government 
which  exists  at  a  certain  time ;  it  is  the  power  or  party 
which  conducts  the  Government  of  the  country." 

Unfortunately  the  people  who  oppose  this  idea  in 
the  proposal  with  energy  and  patriotism,  which  would 
be  more  suited  to  other  occasions,  seem  to  think  that 
the  administration  which  is  referred  to  is  nothing 
more  or  less  than  the  manager  of  a  farm. 


662 

In  order  to  preserve  in  its  full  meaning  the  intention 
of  Mr.  Hughes  in  making  his  proposal,  it  has  been  es- 
tablished that  it  shall  be  set  forth  in  the  Record  in 
English  and  Spanish. 

Another  very  scattered  idea  that  has  misrepresented 
the  scope  of  the  pact  is  the  belief  that  the  proposal  sug- 
gested by  Mr.  Hughes  limits  our  sovereignty  over 
Tacna  and  Arica,  forgetting  and  ignoring  that  said 
proposal  has  been  drawn  up  to  meet  the  needs  of  our 
country  and  to  exclusively  limit  the  powers  of  the 
arbitrator  in  order  to  prevent  him  from  being  able  to 
deem  himself  authorized  at  any  time  to  touch  this 
right  which  the  Treaty  of  Ancon  gives  us,  and  which 
we  have  not,  at  any  time,  intended  to  subject  to  foreign 
decisions. 

So  the  principal  aim  of  the  attacks  on  the  Protocol 
and  the  Complementary  Eecord  of  Proceedings  were 
directed  toward  condemning  a  proposal  whose  range 
has  been  clearly  fixed  in  official  documents,  and  were 
united  against  the  efforts  of  the  Peruvian  Delegation, 
which  has  strenuously  opposed  them,  to  limit  the  scope 
of  action  open  to  the  arbitrator  in  case  he  is  inclined 
to  declare  that  the  plebiscite  can  not  now  take  place, 
which  in  our  opinion  is  unlikely. 

The  position  reached  in  these  negotiations  having 
thus  been  explained,  it  seems  clear  to  me  that  the  un- 
just and  strenuous  attacks  which  are  detrimental  to 
our  patriotic  plan  for  bringing  about  peace  in  the  coun- 
try should  be  stopped. 

In  order  to  condense  in  two  phrases  the  possibilities 
of  the  Hughes  proposal,  I  should  say  that  it  has  only 
two  aspects:  either  the  arbitrator  will  declare  that 
the  plebiscite  will  be  carried  out  and  fix  the  condi- 
tions to  which  the  referendum  shall  be  subject,  in  which 
event  our  thesis  will  have  succeeded  to  a  great  degree ; 


663 

or  else  the  arbitrator  will  declare  that  the  plebiscite  is 
no  longer  the  solution  and,  at  that  time,  resting  on  the 
full  rights  emanating  from  the  Treaty  in  our  favor,  we 
shall  discuss  with  the  Government  of  Peru,  in  the  best 
spirit,  another  solution  to  end  the  dispute. 

Today  we  are  the  sovereigns  in  Tacna  and  Arica  and 
our  sovereignty  is  limited  by  one  condition: — the 
plebiscite.  If  it  is  declared  that  it  shall  not  be  carried 
out  we  will  continue  sovereign  as  we  are  today  in 
Tacna  and  Arica  with  no  duty  other  than  to  discuss 
with  Peru  the  means  of  putting  an  end  to  the  conflict 
of  interests  and,  when  the  two  parties  deem  it  proper, 
to  seek  the  good  offices  of  the  United  States,  good 
offices  which  have  a  mere  advisory  character,  the  ad- 
vice of  which  there  is  no  obligation  to  accept,  and  we 
may  be  sure  that  this  advice,  because  it  comes  from 
the  United  States,  will  always  be  considerate  of  our 
rights. 

This  is,  Mr.  President,  the  most  complete  informa- 
tion that  I  can  give  to  the  Congress  and  to  the  country 
on  the  status  of  the  negotiations  and  on  the  scope  of 
the  agreement  reached. 

The  Government  believes  that  it  has  performed  a 
patriotic  service  by  lending  all  its  efforts  toward  a  so- 
lution of  the  old  problem  which  has  dragged  along  for 
forty  years,  disturbing  the  entire  political  situation  on 
the  American  Continent.  It  believes  that  it  has  ren- 
dered a  special  patriotic  service  to  the  country  in  that 
it  has  been  able  to  arrange  an  agreement  which  opens 
up  the  possibility  of  establishing  peace  and  mutual  co- 
operation between  the  two  countries  whose  needs  are 
ordered  to  be  supplied. 

And  as  for  me,  being  confident  that  a  solution  of  the 
problem  to  which  I  have  devoted  a  great  deal  of  study, 
has  been  reached,  which  is  more  suitable  and  less 
burdensome  than  almost  all  the  other  agreements  at- 


664: 

tempted  heretofore,  I  only  congratulate  myself  heartily 
for  having  had  the  honor  of  participating  and  co- 
operating in  this  very  fortunate  period  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  Republic. 

I  fully  respect  the  patriotic  motives  which  doubtless 
inspire  the  men  who  at  this  time  oppose  the  policy  of 
the  Government.  I  know  that  the  present  time  is  a  test, 
and  I  feel  that  there  is  profound  bitterness  and  hostil- 
ity toward  me,  but  I  must  state  that  when  I  undertook 
this  task  I  knew  very  well  that  in  the  end  I  could  not 
hope  for  the  roses  and  laurels  of  a  conqueror,  because 
history  has  taught  me  that  those  who  labor  silently  for 
peace  in  time  of  peace  never  receive  the  kind  regard  of 
the  people  who  praise  those  who  proclaim  the  declara- 
tion of  war,  and  revive  quarrelsome  characteristics  of 
the  primitive  races. 

If  I  had  longed  for  cheap  popularity,  and  if  I  had 
wished  to  betray  my  country,  spoiling,  at  the  eleventh 
hour  the  opportunity  for  making  a  suitable  settlement, 
it  would  have  been  sufficient  for  me  to  assume  a  con- 
temptuous attitude  and  to  angrily  break  up  the  confer- 
ences. But,  Mr.  President,  I  have  demanded  of  my 
youth  the  renouncement  of  cheap  and  easy  popularity, 
and  the  results  which  are  loudly  proclaimed  but  trans- 
ient, and  I  only  trust  that  God  w^ll  give  me  in  the 
future  the  appreciation  for  having  served  my  country 
loyally  and  unselfishly,  which  is  today  denied  me. 

In  order  to  go  deeper  into  some  phases  of  this  ques- 
tion and  to  show  the  Honorable  Senate  some  preceding 
events  which  explain  and  affirm  the  ideas  I  have  had 
the  honor  to  set  forth,  I  wish  to  resort  to  the  power 
which  the  Constitution  gives  me  in  asking  that  the 
Senate  resolve  itself  into  a  secret  session. 

Sr.  Claro  Solar  (President) — Conformable  with 
the  Minister's  request,  the  Senate  will  proceed  in  secret 
session  at  two  o'clock. 


TREATIES,  AGREEMENTS,  ETC. 


667 

Treaty  Between  Chile  and  Bolivia,  August  10,  1866. 
[Translation.] 

The  Republic  of  Chile  and  the  Republic  of  Bolivia, 
desirous  of  bringing  to  a  friendly  and  mutually  satis- 
factory termination,  the  old  question  pending  between 
them  as  to  the  settlement  of  their  respective  territorial 
limits  in  the  desert  of  Atacama,  and  as  to  the  working 
of  the  guano  deposits  on  the  coast  of  that  desert,  and 
resolved  by  this  means  to  consolidate  the  good  under- 
standing, brotherly  friendship,  and  the  bonds  of  inti- 
mate alliance  by  which  they  are  mutually  united,  have 
determined  to  renounce  a  part  of  the  territorial  rights 
which  each,  with  good  reason,  believed  themselves  to 
possess,  and  they  have  agreed  to  conclude  a  treaty, 
which  shall  finally  and  irrevocably  settle  the  aforesaid 
question. 

For  that  purpose  they  have  appointed  their  respec- 
tive Plenipotentiaries,  viz : 

His  Excellency  the  President  of  Chile,  Sehor  Don 
Alvaro  Covarrubias,  Minister  of  State  of  the  Republic 
for  Foreign  Affairs. 

His  Excellency  the  President  of  the  Republic  of 
Bolivia,  Senor  Don  Juan  Ramon  Muiioz  Cabrera,  En- 
voy Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of 
Bolivia  in  Chile. 

Which  Plenipotentiaries,  after  having  mutually  ex- 
changed their  full  powers  and  found  them  in  due  and 
proper  form,  have  agreed  upon  and  stipulated  the  fol- 
lowing articles: 

Article  I.  The  line  of  demarcation  of  the  limits  be- 
tween Chile  and  Bolivia,  in  the  desert  of  Atacama,  shall 
henceforth  be  the  parallel  of  24°  south  latitude,  from 
the  coast  of  the  Pacific  to  the  eastern  limits  of  Chile,  so 
that  Chile  to  the  south  and  Bolivia  to  the  north  shall 


668 

have  possession  and  dominion  of  the  territories  which 
extend  to  the  before-mentioned  parallel  of  24°,  exer- 
cising in  them  all  the  acts  of  jurisdiction  and  sover- 
eignty which  belong  to  the  lord  of  the  soil. 

The  exact  settlement  of  the  line  of  demarcation  be- 
tween two  countries  shall  be  effected  by  a  commission 
of  apt  and  skillful  persons,  one-half  of  the  members  to 
be  appointed  by  each  of  the  high  contracting  parties. 

When  the  divisional  line  is  fixed  the  ground  shall  be 
marked  by  visible  and  permanent  signs,  which  shall 
be  paid  for  jointly  by  the  Governments  of  Chile  and 
Bolivia. 

Article  II.  Notwithstanding  the  territorial  division 
stipulated  in  the  foregoing  article,  the  Republic  of 
Chile  and  the  Eepublic  of  Bolivia  shall  divide  equally 
the  produce  of  the  guano  deposits  discovered  in  Meji- 
llones,  and  any  other  deposits  of  the  same  kind  which 
may  be  discovered  in  the  territory  comprehended  with- 
in the  23rd  and  25th  degrees  of  south  latitude,  as  also 
the  export  duties  upon  minerals  exported  from  the 
space  of  territory  now  designated. 

Article  III.  The  Republic  of  Bolivia  undertakes  to 
qualify  the  bay  and  port  of  Mejillones,  and  to  establish 
a  custom-house  with  the  number  of  officials  which  the 
development  of  industry  and  commerce  may  require. 
This  custom-house  shall  be  the  only  fiscal  office  which 
can  collect  the  produce  of  the  guano  and  the  duties  of 
exportation  upon  the  metals  of  which  the  foregoing 
article  treats. 

The  Government  of  Chile  may  appoint  one  or  more 
fiscal  officers,  who  being  invested  with  a  perfect  right 
of  supervision,  may  intervene  in  the  accounts  of  the 
revenue  of  the  aforesaid  custom-house  at  Mejillones, 
and  receive  from  that  office,  directly,  and  quarterly,  or 
in  the  manner  which  both  Governments  may  stipulate, 


669 

the  part  of  the  profit  belonging  to  Chile,  to  which  Ar- 
ticle II  refers.  The  Government  of  Bolivia  shall  enjoy 
the  same  right,  should  Chile,  for  the  purpose  of  collect- 
ing the  produce  set  forth  in  the  foregoing  Article, 
establish  a  fiscal  office  in  the  territory  comprehended 
between  the  24th  and  25th  degrees. 

Aeticle  IV.  All  produce  of  the  territory  compre- 
hended between  the  24th  and  25th  degrees  of  south  lati- 
tude, which  may  be  shipped  at  the  port  of  Mejillones, 
shall  be  free  of  every  export  duty. 

The  natural  produce  of  Chile  which  may  be  imported 
through  the  port  of  Mejillones  shall  be  free  of  every 
import  duty. 

Aeticle  V.  *The  system  of  working  or  sale  of  the 
guano  and  the  duties  upon  raising  the  minerals  men- 
tioned in  Article  II  of  this  Treaty  shall  be  mutually 
fixed  by  the  high  contracting  parties,  either  by  means 
of  special  conventions,  or  in  the  form  which  they  may 
deem  most  convenient  and  fitting. 

Aeticle  VI.  The  contracting  Kepublics  bind  them- 
selves not  to  sell  or  transfer  their  rights  to  the  posses- 
sion or  dominion  of  the  territory  which  is  divided  be- 
tween them,  in  virtue  of  this  Treaty,  to  any  other  state, 
or  to  any  company  or  private  individual.  In  case  either 
of  them  should  desire  to  make  such  a  sale  the  purchaser 
can  only  be  the  other  contracting  party. 

Aeticle  VII.  Taking  into  consideration  the  losses 
which  the  question  of  limits  has  entailed,  as  is  notori- 
ous, upon  the  individuals  who,  in  company,  were  the 
first  to  work  seriously  the  guano  fields  of  Mejillones, 
and  whose  works  were  suspended  by  order  of  the 
Chilean  authorities,  of  February  17,  1863,  the  high 
contracting  parties  undertake  to  give  in  equity  to  the 
said  individuals  an  indemnity  of  80,000  dollars,  pay- 


670 

able  by  10  per  cent  upon  the  net  proceeds  of  the  Mejil- 
lones  custom-hpuse. 

Article  VIII.  The  present  treaty  shall  be  ratified, 
and  the  ratifications  exchanged  in  the  city  of  La  Paz  or 
in  that  of  Santiago,  within  the  period  of  40  days,  or 
sooner  if  possible. 

In  witness  whereof  the  undersigned  Plenipotenti- 
aries of  the  Eepublic  of  Chile  and  of  the  Republic  of 
Bolivia,  have  signed  and  sealed  the  present  Treaty,  in 
Santiago  the  10th  of  August,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
1866. 

Alvako  Covarrubias 

J.  Ramon  Munoz  Cabrera. 


Secret  Treaty  Between  Bolivia  and  Peru,  February 

6,  1873. 

[Translation.] 

The  Republics  of  Bolivia  and  Peru,  desirous  of 
drawing  together  in  a  solemn  manner  the  bonds  which 
unite  them,  thus  augmenting  their  strength  and  mutu- 
ally guaranteeing  certain  rights,  formulate  the  present 
Treaty  of  defensive  alliance;  for  which  object  the 
President  of  Bolivia  has  conferred  power  adequate 
for  such  a  negotiation  to  Juan  de  la  Cruz  Benavente, 
Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  in 
Peru,  and  the  President  of  Peru  has  conferred  like 
powers  to  Jose  de  la  Riva-Agiiero;  who  have  agreed 
on  the  following  stipulations : 

Article  I.  The  high  contracting  parties  unite  and 
league  together  mutually  to  guarantee  their  indepen- 
dence, their  sovereignty  and  the  integrity  of  their  terri- 
tories respectively,  obligating  themselves  by  the  terms 
of  the  present  treaty  to  defend  themselves  against  all 
foreign  aggression,  whether  emanating  from  one  or 


671 

several  independent  states  or  from  a  force  without  flag 
and  obeying  no  recognized  power. 

Article  II.  The  alliance  will  be  made  effective  to 
preserve  the  rights  expressed  in  the  preceding  article 
and  especially  in  the  cases  of  offense  which  follow : 

1.  In  acts  directed  to  deprive  either  of  the  high  con- 
tracting parties  of  a  portion  of  its  territory  with  the 
aim  of  appropriating  its  dominion  or  of  ceding  it  to 
another  power. 

2.  In  acts  directed  to  submit  either  of  the  high  con- 
tracting parties  to  a  protectorate,  sale  or  cession  of 
territory,  or  establishing  over  it  any  supremacy,  right 
or  preeminence  which  diminishes  or  offends  the  ample 
and  complete  exercise  of  its  sovereignty  and  indepen- 
dence. 

3.  In  acts  directed  to  annul  or  to  vary  the  form  of 
government,  the  political  Constitution  or  the  laws 
which  the  high  contracting  parties  have  given  or  shall 
give  themselves  in  exercise  of  their  respective  sover- 
eignties. 

Article  III.  Both  contracting  parties,  recognizing 
that  every  legitimate  act  of  alliance  is  based  on  jus- 
tice, establish  for  each  one  of  them,  respectively,  the 
right  to  decide  whether  the  offense  received  by  the 
other  is  comprehended  in  the  definition  "of  the  fore- 
going article. 

Article  IV.  A  "casus  foederis"  having  been  de- 
clared, the  high  contracting  parties  promise  immedi- 
ately to  sever  their  relations  with  the  offending  state, 
to  hand  passports  to  her  diplomatic  ministers,  to  can- 
cel the  patents  of  the  consular  agents,  to  prohibit  the 
importation  of  her  natural  or  industrial  products  and 
to  close  their  ports  to  her  ships. 

Article  V.  The  same  parties  will  likewise  name 
plenipotentiaries  to  adjust,  by  protocol,  the  precise  ar-^ 
rangements  determining  the  subsidies,  the  contingents 


672 

of  land  and  sea  forces,  or  assistance  of  whatever  class 
which  should  accrue  to  the  attacked  or  offended  Re- 
public :  to  the  manner  in  which  these  forces  shall  oper- 
ate and  the  aid  to  be  lent  and  all  measures  which  tend 
to  the  success  of  the  defense. 

The  meeting  of  the  plenipotentiaries  will  be  effected 
in  a  place  decided  upon  by  the  offended  party. 

Article  VI.  The  high  contracting  parties  bind  them- 
selves to  give  to  the  offended  or  attacked  party  the 
means  of  defense  which  each  one  of  them  considers 
disposable,  in  any  case  considered  urgent,  even  though 
the  arrangements  prescribed  in  the  preceding  article 
have  not  been  already  effected. 

Article  VII.  The  "casus  foederis"  having  been  de- 
clared, the  party  offended  shall  not  celebrate  any  peace 
agreement,  truce  or  armistice  without  the  concurrence 
of  the  ally  which  has,  in  such  instance,  taken  part  in 
the  war. 

Article  VIII.  The  high  contracting  parties  further 
bind  themselves : 

1.  To  employ,  preferably,  whenever  possible,  all 
means  of  conciliation  to  avoid  a  rupture  or  to  termi- 
nate the  war,  even  if  the  rupture  has  taken  place,  con- 
sidering between  these  means,  as  most  effective,  the 
arbitration  of  a  third  power. 

2.  To  neither  concede  to,  nor  accept  from,  any  na- 
tion or  government,  protectorate  or  supremacy  which 
diminishes  their  independence  or  sovereignty,  nor  to 
cede  nor  lease  in  favor  of  any  nation  or  government 
any  part  of  their  territory  save  in  the  cases  of  better 
definition  of  boundaries. 

3.  Not  to  conclude  boundary  treaties  or  other  terri- 
torial agreements  without  previous  knowledge  of  the 
other  contracting  party. 


673 

Article  IX.  The  stipulations  of  the  present  treaty 
do  not  extend  to  acts  committed  by  political  parties  or 
resulting  from  internal  commotions  independent  of 
the  intervention  of  foreign  governments,  since  the 
present  Treaty  of  Alliance,  having  for  its  principal  ob- 
ject the  reciprocal  guarantee  of  the  sovereign  rights  of 
both  nations,  none  of  its  clauses  should  be  interpreted 
in  opposition  to  its  primary  intention. 

Article  X.  The  high  contracting  parties  shall  so- 
licit together  or  separately,  when  they  so  declare  by 
a  later  protocol,  the  adhesion  of  another  or  other 
American  States  to  the  present  Treaty  of  defensive  al- 
liance. 

Article  XI.  The  present  Treaty  will  be  exchanged  in 
Lima  or  in  La  Paz,  as  soon  as  it  is  rendered  constitu- 
tionally effective  and  will  be  in  full  effectiveness 
twenty  days  after  the  exchange.  Its  duration  will  be 
indefinite,  each  of  the  parties  reserving  the  right  of 
terminating  it  when  considered  desirable.  In  such 
case  the  party  will  notify  its  resolution  to  the  other 
party  and  the  Treaty  will  be  annulled  in  four  months 
counting  from  the  date  of  notification. 

In  faith  of  which  the  respective  Plenipotentiaries 
sign  it  in  duplicate  and  seal  it  with  their  private  seals. 

Effected  in  Lima,  the  sixth  day  of  February  of  One 
Thousand  Eight  Hundred  and  Seventy-three. 

Juan  de  la  Cruz  Benavente. — J.  de  la  Eiva-Aguero. 

Additional  Article.  The  present  Treaty  of  de- 
fensive alliance  between  Bolivia  and  Peru  shall  be 
secret  until  the  two  high  contracting  parties  by  com- 
mon accord  consider  its  publication  necessary. 

Juan  de  la  Cruz  Benavente. — J.  de  la  Rtva-Aguero. 


674 

Treaty  Between  Chile  and  Bolivia,  August  6,  1874. 
[Translation.] 

The  Republics  of  Bolivia  and  of  Chile,  being  equally 
desirous  of  consolidating  their  mutual  and  good  re- 
lations and  of  putting  aside,  by  means  of  solemn  and 
friendly  pacts,  all  the  causes  that  might  tend  to  lessen 
or  obstruct  them,  have  determined  to  celebrate  a  new 
boundary  treaty  that,  modifying  the  one  celebrated  in 
the  year  1866,  will  assure,  in  the  future,  to  the  citizens 
and  Governments  of  both  Republics  the  peace  and 
harmony  necessary  to  their  freedom  and  progress. 

To  that  effect  they  have  appointed  and  constituted 
as  their  Plenipotentiaries,  the  Government  of  Bolivia, 
Sr.  Mariano  Baptista,  and  the  Republic  of  Chile,  Don 
Carlos  Walker  Martinez,  who,  after  having  shown 
their  full  powers  and  authority,  and  having  found 
them  in  due  and  correct  form,  have  agreed  on  the  fol- 
lowing articles: 

Article  I.  The  parallel  of  the  24th  degree  from  the 
ocean  to  the  Cordillera  of  the  Andes,  in  the  divortiu 
aquarum,  is  the  boundary  between  the  Republics  of 
Bolivia  and  Chile. 

Article  II.  For  the  effects  of  this  Treaty  the  lines  of 
the  parallels  23  and  24,  established  by  Commissioner 
Pissis  and  Mujia,  and  to  which  the  acts  of  the  proceed- 
ings of  February  10th,  1870,  bear  testimony,  shall  be 
considered  as  holding  and  subsisting. 

Should  there  arise  any  doubts  as  to  the  true  and 
exact  location  of  the  Caracoles  mining  district,  or  of 
any  other  mineral-bearing  land,  and  it  is  thought  that 
they  are  outside  of  the  zone  enclosed  between  both 
parallels,  their  exact  ubication  shall  be  determined  by 
a  commission  of  two  experts,  each  contracting  party 
appointing  one,  with  power  to  appoint  a  third  to  act 


675 

as  umpire,  and  in  the  event  that  they  should  not  be 
able  to  agree  upon  the  umpire,  this  appointment  shall 
be  left  to  the  decision  of  H.  M.  the  Emperor  of  Brazil. 
Until  it  shall  be  proved  to  be  otherwise,  it  shall  ]be 
understood,  as  it  is  at  present,  that  this  mineral  dis- 
trict lies  within  the  aforesaid  parallels. 

Article  III.  The  deposits  of  guano  which  now  exist, 
or  which  may  be  discovered  in  the  future,  within  the 
limits  mentioned  in  the  preceding  article,  shall  be 
divided  in  moiety  between  Bolivia  and  Chile;  the 
Governments  of  the  two  Republics  shall  agree  by 
mutual  consent  on  the  method  of  working,  adminis- 
trating and  selling  the  guano,  adopting  the  manner 
and  form  hitherto  employed. 

Article  IV.  The  export  duties  to  be  levied  on  the 
minerals  mined  within  the  zone  mentioned  in  the  pre- 
ceding articles  shall  not  exceed  those  which  are  in 
force  at  the  present  time;  and  the  Chilean  capital, 
their  persons  and  their  industries,  shall  not  be  subject 
to  any  other  taxes  of  whatsoever  kind  than  at  present 
exist.  The  conditions  expressed  in  this  article  shall 
be  binding  for  a  term  of  twenty-five  years. 

Article.  V.  The  Chilean  natural  products  which 
may  be  imported  through  the  Bolivia  littoral,  com- 
prised within  parallels  23  and  24,  shall  be  free 
and  exempt  from  the  payment  of  any  duty;  and  as 
reciprocity  the  natural  products  of  Bolivia  shall  en- 
joy the  same  privilege  on  entering  the  Chilean  lit- 
toral comprised  within  the  parallels  of  24  and  25. 

Article  VI.  The  Republic  of  Bolivia  binds  herself 
to  open  and  establish  Mejillones  and  Antofagasta  as 
permanent  ports  of  the  Bolivian  littoral. 

Article  VII.  From  this  date  the  Treaty  of  August 
10th,  1866,  is  abrogated  in  all  its  parts. 


676 

Aeticle  VIII.  The  present  Treaty  shall  be  ratified 
by  each  of  the  contracting  Republics,  and  the  ratifi- 
cation exchanged  at  the  city  of  Sucre  within  a  term  of 
three  months. 

In  proof  of  which  the  undersigned,  Plenipotentiaries 
of  the  Republics  of  Bolivia  and  Chile,  have  signed  the 
present  protocol  and  sealed  it  with  their  respective 
seals,  at  Sucre,  the  sixth  day  of  the  month  of  August, 
in  the  year  of  our  Lord,  One  Thousand,  Eight  Hun- 
dred and  Seventy-Four. 

Maeiano  Baptista.      Carlos  Walkee  Martinez. 


Supplementary  Protocol  of  the  Chilecm-Bolivian 
Treaty  of  1874,  July  21,  1875. 

[Translation.] 

The  Plenipotentiaries  of  the  Republics  of  Bolivia  and 
of  Chile,  Don  Mariano  Baptista  and  Don  Carlos  Wal- 
ker Martinez,  duly  authorized  by  their  respective 
Governments,  agree  to  the  following  articles,  which 
will  be  considered  as  an  integral  part  of  the  Treaty 
of  Sucre  of  the  6th  of  August,  1874. 

Article  1.  It  is  declared  that  the  meaning  that  should 
be  given  to  the  common  exploitation  of  guano  already 
discovered  and  that  may  be  discovered,  mentioned  in 
Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  the  6th  of  August,  refers 
to  the  territory  comprised  between  parallels  23  and  25 
of  latitude  south. 

Aeticle  2.  All  the  questions  arising  from  the  inter- 
pretation and  application  of  the  Treaty  of  the  6th  of 
August,  1874,  must  be  submitted  to  arbitration. 


677 

Article  3.  The  present  Treaty  shall  be  ratified  with- 
in the  shortest  period  possible  and  the  ratifications  to 
be  exchanged  in  any  city  of  Bolivia. 

In  proof  of  which  the  undersigned,  Plenipotenti- 
aries of  the  Eepublics  of  Bolivia  and  Chile,  have 
signed  the  present  protocol  and  affixed  their  seals  in 
La  Paz,  on  the  twenty-first  day  of  the  month  of  July, 
the  year  of  our  Lord,  One  Thousand,  Eight  Hundred 
and  Seventy-five. 

(Seal)  Mariano  Baptista, 

(Seal)  C.  Walker  Martinez. 


Treaty  Between  Chile  and  Peru,  October  20, 1883. 
[Translation.] 

The  Republic  of  Chile  on  the  one  part  and  the  Re- 
public of  Peru  on  the  other  being  desirous  of  rein- 
stating relations  of  friendship  between  the  two  coun- 
tries, have  resolved  upon  celebrating  a  treaty  of  peace 
and  friendship  and  for  the  purpose  have  named  and 
deputed  as  their  plenipotentiaries  the  following: 

His  Excellency  the  President  of  the  Republic  of 
Chile  appoints  Don  Jovino  Novoa,  and  His  Excellency 
the  President  of  the  Republic  of  Peru,  Don  Jose  An- 
tonio Lavalle,  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  and  Don 
Mariano  Castro  Zaldivar,  who,  after  communicating 
their  credentials  and  having  found  them  to  be  in  proper 
and  due  form,  have  agreed  to  the  following  articles : 

Article  I.  The  relations  of  peace  and  friendship  be- 
tween the  Republics  of  Chile  and  Peru  to  be  reestab- 
lished. 

Article  2.  The  Republic  of  Peru  cedes  to  the  Re- 
public of  Chili  in  perpetuity  and  unconditionally  the 


678 

territory  of  the  littoral  province  of  Tarapaca,  the 
boundaries  of  which  are,  on  the  north  the  ravine  and 
River  Loa,  on  the  east  the  Republic  of  Bolivia  and 
on  the  west  the  Pacific  Ocean. 

Article  3.  The  territory  of  the  provinces  of  Tacna 
and  Arioa,  bounded  on  the  north  by  the  River  Sama 
from  its  source  in  the  Cordilleras  on  the  frontier  of 
Bolivia  to  its  mouth  at  the  sea,  on  the  south  by  the 
ravine  and  River  Camarones,  on  the  east  by  the  Re- 
public of  Bolivia,  and  on  the  west  by  the  Pacific  Ocean, 
shall  continue  in  the  possession  of  Chile  subject  to 
Chilean  laws  and  authority  during  a  period  of  ten 
years,  to  be  reckoned  from  the  date  of  the  ratification 
of  the  present  treaty  of  peace. 

After  the  expiration  of  that  term  a  plebiscitum  will 
decide  by  popular  vote  whether  the  territories  of  the 
above  mentioned  provinces  will  remain  definitely  un- 
der the  dominion  and  sovereignty  of  Chile  or  continue 
to  form  part  of  Peru.  Either  of  the  two  countries  to 
which  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica  may  remain 
annexed,  will  pay  to  the  other  ten  millions  of  Chile 
silver  dollars  or  Peruvian  soles  of  the  same  weight 
and  fineness. 

A  special  protocol,  which  will  be  considered  as  an 
integral  portion  of  the  present  treaty  will  prescribe 
the  manner  in  which  the  plebiscitum  is  to  be  carried 
out,  and  the  terms  and  time  for  the  payment  of  the 
ten  millions  by  the  nation  which  may  remain  in  pos- 
session of  the  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

Article  4.  In  compliance  with  the  stipulations  of 
the  supreme  decree  of  February  9,  1882,  by  which  the 
G-overnment  of  Chile  ordered  the  sale  of  one  million 
tons  of  guano,  the  net  proceeds  of  which,  after  deduc- 
ting the  expenses  and  other  disbursements,  as  referred 
to   in    article    13    of    said   decree,   to   be   divided   in 


679 

equal  parts  between  the  Government  of  Chile  and  those 
creditors  of  Peru  whose  claims  appear  to  be  guar- 
anteed by  lien  on  the  guano.  After  the  sale  of  the 
million  tons  of  guano  has  been  effected,  referred  to 
in  the  previous  paragraph,  the  Government  of  Chile 
will  continue  paying  over  to  the  Peruvian  creditors 
50  per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds  of  guano,  as  stipulated 
in  the  above  mentioned  Article  13,  until  the  extinc- 
tion of  the  debt  or  the  exhaustion  of  the  deposits  now 
being  worked. 

The  proceeds  of  deposits  or  beds  that  may  be  here- 
after discovered  in  the  territories  that  have  been  ceded 
will  belong  exclusively  to  Chile. 

Article  5.  If,  in  the  territories  that  remain  in  pos- 
session of  Peru,  there  should  be  discovered  beds  or  de- 
posits of  guano,  in  order  to  avoid  competition  in  the 
sale  of  the  article  by  the  Governments  of  Chile  and 
Peru,  the  two  Governments,  by  mutual  agreement,  will 
first  determine  the  proportion  and  conditions  to  which 
each  of  them  binds  itself  in  the  disposal  of  the  said 
fertilizer. 

The  stipulations  in  the  preceding  paragraph  will 
also  be  binding  in  regard  to  the  existing  guano  now 
known  and  which  may  remain  over  in  the  Lobos 
Islands  when  the  time  comes  for  delivering  up  these 
islands  to  the  Government  of  Peru,  in  conformity 
with  the  terms  of  the  ninth  article  of  the  present 
treaty. 

Article  6.  The  Peruvian  creditors,  to  whom  may  be 
awarded  the  proceeds  stipulated  in  Article  4,  must  sub- 
mit themselves,  in  proving  their  titles  and  in  other 
procedures,  to  the  regulations  stated  in  the  supreme 
decree  of  February  9,  1882. 

Article  7.  The  obligation  which  the  Government  of 
Chile  accepts,  in  accordance  with  the  fourth  article, 


680 

to  deliver  over  50  per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds  of  guano 
from  the  deposits  now  actually  being  worked,  will  be 
carried  out  whether  the  work  be  done  by  virtue  of  the 
existing  contract  for  the  sale  of  one  million  tons  or 
through  any  other  contract,  or  on  account  of  the 
Government  of  Chile. 

Article  8.  Beyond  the  stipulations  contained  in  the 
preceding  articles,  and  the  obligations  that  the  Chilean 
Government  has  voluntarily  accepted  in  the  supreme 
decree  of  March  28, 1882,  which  relates  to  the  saltpeter 
works  in  Tarapaca,  the  said  Government  of  Chile  will 
recognize  no  debts,  whatever  their  nature  or  source, 
that  may  affect  the  new  territories  acquired  by  virtue 
of  this  treaty. 

Article  9.  The  Lobos  Islands  will  remain  under  the 
administration  of  the  Government  of  Chile  until  the 
completion  of  the  excavation  from  existing  deposits  of 
the  million  tons  of  guano,  in  conformity  with  articles 
4  and  7.    After  this  they  will  be  returned  to  Peru. 

Article  10.  The  Government  of  Chile  declares  that  it 
will  cede  to  Peru,  to  commence  from  the  date  of  the 
constitutional  ratification  and  exchange  of  the  present 
Treaty,  the  fifty  per  centum  pertaining  to  Chile 
from  the  proceeds  of  the  guano  of  the  Lobos  Islands. 

Article  11.  Pending  a  special  treaty  to  be  entered 
upon  mercantile  relations  shall  be  maintained  on  the 
same  footing  as  before  the  5th  of  April,  1879. 

Article  12.  Indemnities  due  by  Peru  to  Chileans, 
who  may  have  suffered  damages  on  account  of  the  war, 
will  be  adjudged  by  a  tribunal  of  arbitration  or  mixed 
international  commission,  to  be  appointed  immediately 
after  the  ratification  of  the  present  treaty  in  the  man- 
ner established  by  conventions  recently  adjusted  be- 
tween Chile  and  the  Governments  of  England,  France, 
and  Italy. 


681 

Article  13.  The  contracting  Governments  recognize 
and  accept  the  validity  of  all  administrative  and  ju- 
dicial acts  during  the  occupation  of  Peru  arising  from 
the  martial  jurisdiction  exercised  by  the  Government 
of  Chile. 

Article  14.  The  present  treaty  to  be  ratified  and  the 
ratifications  exchanged  in  the  city  of  Lima,  so  soon 
as  possible  during  a  period  not  exceeding  one  hundred 
and  sixty  days,  to  be  reckoned  from  this  date. 

In  testimony  whereof  the  several  plenipotentiaries 
have  signed  this  in  duplicate  and  affixed  their  private 
seals. 

Done  in  Lima  the  20th  day  of  October,  in  the  year 
of  our  Lord  One  Thousand  Eight  Hundred  and  Eighty- 
three. 

Jovino  Novoa 

J.  A.  De  Lavalle 

Mariano  Castro  Zaldivar 


Chile-Bolivia  Truce  Agreement,  April  4, 1884. 
[Translation.] 

Until  an  opportunity  occurs  for  celebrating  a  definite 
Treaty  of  Peace  between  the  Republics  of  Chile  and 
Bolivia,  the  two  countries,  duly  represented,  the  first 
by  the  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs,  don  Aniceto  Ver- 
gara  Albano,  and  the  second  by  Sefiores  don  Belisario 
Salinas  and  don  Belisario  Beoto,  have  agreed  to  enter 
into  a  covenant  for  a  truce  on  the  following  bases : 

Article  I.  The  Republics  of  Chile  and  Bolivia  hereby 
celebrate  an  indefinite  truce,  and,  in  consequence,  the 
state  of  war  is  declared  terminated,  and  cannot  be  re- 


682 

newed  without  one  year's  notice,  at  least,  of  a  wish 
to  resume  hostilities  being  given  by  either  of  the  con- 
tracting parties.  Notice  in  that  case  shall  either  be 
given  directly  or  through  the  diplomatic  representative 
of  a  friendly  nation. 

Article  II.  Whilst  the  truce  remains  in  force  the  Re- 
public of  Chile  shall  continue  to  govern  politically  and 
administratively,  according  to  Chilean  law,  the  terri- 
tories situated  between  the  23rd  parallel  of  latitude 
and  the  mouth  of  the  River  Loa,  on  the  Pacific;  the 
eastern  boundary  of  this  territory  is  a  straight  line 
leaving  Solapegui  from  its  intersection  with  the  bound- 
ary of  the  Argentine  Republic  to  the  volcano  Lican- 
caur ;  from  thence  to  the  summit  of  the  extinct  volcano 
Cobana ;  from  this  point  by  a  straight  line  to  the  most 
southerly  whirlpool  in  the  Lake  Ascotan ;  from  thence 
a  straight  line  drawn  across  the  said  lake  to  the  volcano 
Ollagua.  From  this  point  another  straight  line  to  the 
volcano  Tua,  and  falling  into  the  present  boundary 
line  between  the  department  of  Tarapaca  and  Bolivia. 

In  case  of  difficulties  arising,  the  two  parties  shall 
name  a  commission  of  engineers  to  fix  the  limits  in 
accordance  with  the  points  here  laid  down. 

Article  III.  Chilean  property  sequestrated  by  de- 
crees of  the  Bolivian  Government,  or  by  acts  emanat- 
ing from  the  civil  or  military  authorities,  shall  be  at 
once  restored  to  its  owners  or  to  representatives  duly 
empowered  by  them.  Such  proceeds  of  the  said  prop- 
erty as  may  have  been  received  by  the  Bolivian  Gov- 
ernment, and  of  which  sufficient  documentary  evidence 
is  given,  shall  also  be  repaid. 

Indemnity  for  injuries  received  by  Chilean  subjects 
in  the  above  manner,  or  by  the  destruction  of  their 
property,  shall  be  subject  for  negotiation  between  the 
Bolivian  Government  and  the  parties  interested. 


683 

Article  IV.  In  the  event  of  disagreement  between 
the  Government  of  Bolivia  and  the  parties  interested 
as  to  the  amount  of  indemnity  or  the  mode  of  payment, 
the  disputed  points  shall  be  submitted  to  the  arbitra- 
tion of  a  commission  composed  of  one  member  named 
by  Chile,  another  by  Bolivia,  and  a  third  chosen  by 
mutual  agreement  in  Chile  from  among  the  neutral 
representatives  accredited  to  that  country.  This  ap- 
pointment shall  be  made  with  the  least  possible  delay. 

Article  V.  Commercial  relations  are  reestablished 
between  Chile  and  Bolivia.  From  henceforth  Chilean 
produce  and  articles  manufactured  from  the  same  shall 
be  admitted  into  Bolivia  duty  free;  and  Bolivian  pro- 
duce of  the  same  class,  or  manufactured  in  the  same 
way,  shall  enjoy  the  same  privileges  as  regards  import 
and  export  duties  through  Chilean  ports. 

The  commercial  privileges  accorded  to  Chilean  and 
Bolivian  manufactured  goods,  as  also  the  enumeration 
of  the  said  articles,  shall  form  the  subject  of  a  special 
protocol. 

Foreign  merchandise  on  which  duty  has  been  paid 
will  be  admitted  at  Arica  on  the  same  conditions  as 
foreign  merchandise  for  Bolivia  arriving  direct  at  that 
port. 

Foreign  merchandise  for  Bolivia  will  be  permitted 
free  transit  through  Antofagasta  without  prejudice 
to  whatever  steps  Chile  may  consider  necessary  to  take 
to  prevent  contraband  trade.  In  the  absence  of  any 
agreement  to  the  contrary,  Chile  and  Bolivia  shall 
enjoy  all  advantages  and  commercial  privileges  that 
either  may  accord  to  the  most  favored  nation. 

Article  VI.  Foreign  merchandise  landed  at  the  port 
of  Arica  and  destined  for  consumption  in  Bolivia  shall 
pay  duty  according  to  Chilean  tariff,  without  further 
duty  being  charged  thereon  in  the  interior.     The  re- 


684 

ceipts  of  the  custom-house  at  that  port  will  be  appor- 
tioned as  follows :  25  per  cent  shall  be  apportioned  to 
the  service  of  the  Chilean  custom-house  for  clearance 
of  merchandise  for  consumption  in  Tacna  and  Arica, 
and  75  per  cent  to  Bolivia.  This  75  per  cent  shall  then 
be  divided  as  follows :  The  Chilean  administration 
will  retain  40  per  cent  to  provide  for  the  payments 
which  may  be  due  by  Bolivia  on  account  of  the  pro- 
visions of  Article  III  of  this  Agreement,  and  of  the  bal- 
ance of  the  loan  raised  by  Bolivia  in  Chile  in  1867,  and 
the  rest  shall  be  handed  over  to  the  Government  of 
Bolivia  in  current  money  or  bills  to  their  order.  The 
loan  shall  be  dealt  with,  as  regards  its  liquidation  and 
payment,  in  the  same  manner  as  the  war  indemnities. 

The  Bolivian  Government  may,  at  their  pleasure,  in- 
spect the  accounts  of  the  custom-house  at  Arica 
through  its  custom-house  agents. 

The  indemnities  referred  to  in  Article  III  having 
been  paid,  and  the  motive  having  ceased  for  the  reten- 
tion of  the  40  per  cent  aforesaid,  Bolivia  may  reestab- 
lish custom-houses  at  her  convenience  on  her  own  ter- 
ritory. In  this  case,  merchandise  will  be  permitted 
free  transit  through  Arica. 

Article  VII.  Any  action  of  the  subordinate  authori- 
ties of  one  or  other  country  calculated  to  alter  the 
situation  established  by  the  present  Agreement  of 
Truce,  especially  as  regards  the  limits  of  the  territory 
in  occupation  of  Chile,  shall  be  reprimanded  and  pun- 
ished by  the  respective  Governments  either  on  .their 
own  account  or  at  the  request  of  those  concerned. 

Article  VIII.  As  the  object  of  the  contracting  par- 
ties in  celebrating  this  Agreement  of  Truce  is  to  pre- 
pare and  facilitate  the  settlement  of  a  solid  and  lasting 
peace  between  the  two  Republics,  they  reciprocally 
engage  to  prosecute  such  measures  as  shall  conduce  to 
that  end. 


685 

This  Agreement  shall  be  ratified  by  the  Government 
of  Bolivia  within  forty  days,  and  the  ratifications  ex- 
changed at  Santiago  during  the  month  of  June  next. 

In  faith  of  which  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs 
of  Chile  and  the  Plenipotentiaries  of  Bolivia,  who  ex- 
hibited their  respective  full  powers,  signed  in  duplicate 
the  present  Treaty  of  Truce  in  Valparaiso,  the  4th 
day  of  April,  One  Thousand  Eight  Hundred  and 
Eighty-Four. 

Vergaka  Alb  an  o, 
Belisario  Salinas, 
Belisarjo  Boeto. 


Treaty  Between  Bolivia  a/nd  Peru,  September  23 ,  1902. 
[Translation.] 

The  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Peru  and  of  the 
Republic  of  Bolivia,  having  in  view  the  solution  by 
peaceful  and  friendly  means  of  the  controversy  as  to 
limits  now  pending  between  both  countries,  have 
agreed  to  define  and  fix  the  divisionary  line,  and  have 
appointed  for  this  purpose  the  Plenipotentiaries,  viz: 

His  Excellency  the  President  of  Peru  has  appointed 
Dr.  Felipe  de  Osma  its  Envoy  Extraordinary  and 
Minister  Plenipotentiary  to  the  Government  of  Bo- 
livia. 

His  Excellency  the  President  of  the  Republic  of 
Bolivia  has  appointed  Dr.  Eliodoro  Villazon,  the  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Affairs. 

These  parties,  after  exhibiting  their  full  powers  and 
finding  them  to  be  in  due  form,  have  agreed  to  the  fol- 
lowing articles : 


686 

Article  1.  The  two  high  contracting  parties  agree 
to  proceed  to  the  demarcation  of  the  frontier,  from  the 
point  of  intersection  between  this  and  the  boundary 
of  the  territories  occupied  by  Chile,  in  accordance  with 
the  third  Clause  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  of  1883,  on  the 
west,  and  as  far  as  the  snow  fields  of  Palomani  on  the 
east,  it  being  understood  that  in  this  region  the  termi- 
nating point  of  the  divisionary  line  is  to  be  fixed  in 
accordance  with  the  surveys  and  indications  of  the 
commission  of  limits.  The  settlement  of  the  question 
as  to  the  remainder  of  the  frontier  is  reserved  for 
another  special  convention. 

Article  2.  The  high  contracting  parties  likewise 
agree  to  proceed,  in  accordance  with  the  conditions  of 
the  present  treaty,  to  the  demarcation  of  the  line 
which  separates  the  Peruvian  provinces  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  from  the  Bolivian  province  of  Carangas,  im- 
mediately after  the  said  provinces  are  once  more 
under  the  sovereignty  of  Peru. 

Article  3.  The  frontier  pointed  out  in  the  first  Ar- 
ticle shall  be  surveyed  by  a  mixed  demarcation  com- 
mission, composed,  on  each  side,  of  a  national  commis- 
sion capable  of  examining  and  appreciating  the  titles 
relating  to  the  limits,  a  chief  geographical  engineer,  an 
assistant  engineer,  a  secretary,  and  the  necessary 
auxiliary  staff.  These  commissions  shall  be  duly  con- 
stituted and  shall  commence  their  labors  as  soon  as 
the  interchange  of  ratifications  has  taken  place. 

Article  4.  The  surveys  shall  comprise  at  least  a 
league  in  extent  on  each  side  of  the  limit  now  recog- 
nized, and  as  regards  the  points  about  which  there  ex- 
ists dispute  they  shall  include  the  whole  of  the  dis- 
puted territory,  with  its  irregularities  and  topographi- 
cal details. 


687 

Article  5.  The  mixed  commission  shall  make  plans, 
dividing  them  into  numbered  sections,  and  shall  set 
down  in  them  the  irregularities  of  the  grounds,  the 
limits  more  or  less  recognized  at  the  present  time,  and 
the  advances  or  limits  claimed  by  the  commissioners 
of  each  nation.  Having  come  to  an  agreement,  it  shall 
proceed  to  the  demarcation  and  placing  of  landmarks 
on  the  divisionary  line,  and  while  ordering  them  to 
be  placed  in  their  proper  position,  shall  draw  up  a 
document  setting  forth  the  facts  and  also  the  number 
of  landmarks.  Should  there  be  any  disagreement, 
each  commission  will  mark  on  a  plan  the  limit  which 
ought  to  be  fixed,  according  to  its  judgment,  and  will 
accompany  the  same  with  a  concise  memorandum, 
stating  what  are  the  titles  and  which  are  the  reasons. 

Article  6.  The  plans  or  maps  shall  be  submitted  to 
the  examination  and  approval  of  the  respective  Gov- 
ernments, and  by  means  of  a  general  protocol,  or  other 
partial  ones,  the  definite  divisionary  line  of  both  na- 
tions shall  be  fixed,  and  on  the  said  line  shall  be  set  up 
the  landmarks,  their  respective  localities  being  duly 
set  forth  in  as  many  minutes  of  the  proceedings  as 
may  be  necessary. 

Article  7.  If  the  high  contracting  parties  should  be 
unable  to  resolve  between  themselves  the  cases  which 
may  arise  of  disagreement  between  the  respective  com- 
missions, they  shall  submit  the  same  to  arbitration. 

Article  8.  The  detailed  instructions  for  the  commis- 
sions to  commence  their  labors  shall  be  agreed  upon  in 
due  time,  by  means  of  a  special  protocol,  and  they  shall 
be  handed  to  the  respective  commissions,  which,  for 
this  purpose,  shall  have  assembled  in  the  city  of  La 
Paz  or  in  that  of  Puno. 

In  witness  whereof  the  undersigned  have  set  their 
hand  and  seal  to  the  present  treaty,  drawn  up  in  dupli- 


688 

cate,  in  the  city  of  La  Paz,  on  the  23d  day  of  Septem- 
ber, 1902. 

Felipe  De  Osma. 

Eliodoro  Villazojn. 


Treaty  Between  Chile  and  Bolivia,  and  Convention  for 
the  Construction  and  Operation  of  a  Railroad 
from  Arica  to  La  Paz,  October  20,  1904. 

Jerman  Riesco,  President  of  the  Republic  of  Chile, 
inasmuch  as  a  Treaty  of  Peace  and  Friendship,  with  a 
Supplementary  Protocol  thereto,  was  negotiated,  con- 
cluded, and  signed  on  October  20,  1904,  between  the 
Republic  of  Chile  and  the  Republic  of  Bolivia,  through 
their  duly  authorized  Plenipotentiaries,  the  Treaty 
reading  as  follows : 

In  pursuance  of  the  purpose  expressed  in  Article  8 
of  the  truce  agreement  of  April  4,  1884,  the  Republic 
of  Chile  and  the  Republic  of  Bolivia  have  agreed  to 
celebrate  a  Treaty  of  Peace  and  Friendship,  and  to  that 
end  have  named  and  constituted  as  their  Plenipoten- 
tiaries, respectively;  His  Excellency  the  President  of 
the  Republic  of  Chile,  Don  Emilio  Bello  Codecido, 
Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  and  His  Excellency  the 
President  of  the  Republic  of  Bolivia,  Don  Alberto 
Gutierrez,  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Pleni- 
potentiary of  Bolivia  in  Chile,  who,  having  exchanged 
their  full  powers  and  having  found  them  in  good  and 
due  form,  have  agreed  on  the  following: 

Article  1.  The  relations  of  peace  and  friendship  be- 
tween the  Republic  of  Chile  and  the  Republic  of  Bo- 
livia are  reestablished,  the  status  established  by  the 
truce  agreement  being  thereby  terminated. 


689 

Article  2.  By  the  present  treaty  the  territory  oc- 
cupied by  Chile  by  virtue  of  Article  2  of  the  truce 
agreement  of  April  4,  1884,  is  recognized  as  belonging 
absolutely  and  in  perpetuity  to  Chile. 

The  north  and  south  boundary  between  Chile  and 
Bolivia  shall  be  that  here  indicated: 

From  the  highest  point  of  Zalpaleri  Hill  (1)  in  a 
straight  line  to  the  highest  point  of  the  ridge  jutting 
out  toward  the  south  from  Guayaques  Hill,  in  latitude 
(approximate)  22°  54';  hence  a  straight  line  to  the  pass 
of  the  Cajon  (3) ;  next,  the  watershed  of  the  ridge  which 
runs  north,  including  the  summits  of  Juriques  Hill  (4), 
Licancabur.  Volcano  (5),  Sairecabur  Hill  (6),  Curiqu- 
inca  Hill  (7),  and  Putana  or  Jorjencel  Volcano  (8). 
From  this  point  it  will  follow  one  of  the  ridges  to 
Pajonal  Hill  (9),  and  in  a  straight  line  to  the  south 
peak  of  the  Tocorpuri  Hills  (10),  whence  it  will  follow 
the  watershed  of  the  Panizo  Ridge  (11)  and  the  Tatio 
Range  (12).  It  will  keep  on  toward  the  north  by  the 
watershed  of  the  Linzor  Ridge  (13)  and  the  Saliguala 
Hill  (14) ;  from  their  northern  peak  (Volcano  Apaga- 
do)  (15)  it  shall  go  by  a  ridge  to  the  little  hill  called 
Silala  (16)  and  thence  in  a  straight  line  to  Inacaliri 
or  Cajon  Hill  (17). 

From  this  point  it  shall  go  in  a  straight  line  to  the 
peak  which  appears  in  the  middle  of  the  group  of 
the  Inca  or  Barrancane  Hills  (18),  and,  again  taking 
the  watershed,  shall  keep  on  northward  by  the  ridge 
of  Ascotan  or  Jardin  Hill  (19) ;  from  the  summit 
of  this  hill  it  shall  go  in  a  straight  line  to  the  sum- 
mit of  Araral  Hill  (20)  and  by  straight  line  again  to 
the  summit  of  Ollague  Volcano  (21). 

Hence  in  a  straight  line  to  the  highest  peak  of  Chi- 
papa  Hill  (22),  descending  toward  the  west  by  a  line 
of  small  hills  until  it  reaches  the  summit  of  Cosca  Hill 
(23). 


690 

Fom  this  point  it  shall  be  the  watershed  of  the  ridge 
which  joins  it  to  Alconcha  Hill  (24),  and  thence  it 
shall  go  to  Olca  Volcano  (25)  by  the  divide.  From 
this  volcano  it  shall  continue  by  the  range  of  the  Mal- 
lunn  Hill  (26),  the  Laguna  Hill  (27),  Irruputuncu  Vol- 
cano (28),  Bofedal  Hill  (29),  Chela  Hill  (30),  and, 
after  a  high  knot  of  hills,  shall  reach  the  Milliri  (31), 
and  then  the  Hnalicani  (32). 

Hence  it  shall  go  to  Caiti  Hill  (33)  and  shall  fol- 
low the  divide  to  Napa  Hill  (34)'. 

From  the  summit  of  this  hill  it  shall  go  in  a  straight 
line  to  a  point  (35)  situated  ten  kilometers  to  the  south 
of  the  eastern  peak  of  Huailla  Hill  (36),  whence  it 
shall  go  in  a  straight  line  to  the  hill  named;  doubling 
immediately  toward  the  east,  it  shall  keep  on  by  the 
range  of  Laguna  (37),  Correjidor  (38),  and  Huai- 
llaputuncu  (39),  hills  to  the  easternmost  peak  of  Si- 
llillica  (40),  and  thence  by  the  ridge  that  runs  north- 
west to  the  summit  of  Piga  Hill  (41). 

From  this  hill  it  shall  go  in  a  straight  line  to  the 
highest  point  of  the  Three  Little  Hills  (42),  and  thence 
in  a  straight  line  to  Challacollo  Hill  (43)  and  the  nar- 
row part  of  Sacaya  Valley  (44),  fronting  Villacollo. 

From  Sacaya  the  boundary  shall  run  in  straight 
lines  to  the  summit  of  Cueva  Color ada  (45)  and  San- 
taile  46),  and  thence  it  mil  keep  on  to  the  northwest 
by  Irruputuncu  Hill  (47)  and  Patalini  Hill  (48)  . 

From  this  summit  the  boundary  shall  go  in  a 
straight  line  to  Chiarcollo  Hill  (49),  cutting  the  Can- 
cosa  Eiver  (50),  and  thence  also  in  a  straight  line  to 
the  summit  of  Pintapintani  Hill  (51),  and  from  this 
hill  by  the  range  of  the  Quiuri  (52),  Pumiri  (53), 
and  Panatalla  (54)  hills. 

From  the  summit  of  Panatalla  it  shall  go  in  a 
straight  line  to  Tolapacheta   (55),  midway  between 


691 

Chapi  and  Binconada,  and  from  this  point  in  a 
straight  line  to  the  pass  of  Huialla  (56) ;  thence  it 
shall  pass  on  by  the  summits  of  Lacataya  (57)  and 
Salitral  (58)  hills. 

It  shall  turn  toward  the  north,  going  in  a  straight 
line  to  Tapacollo  Hill  (59),  in  the  Salar  of  Coipasa, 
and  in  another  straight  line  to  the  landmark  of  Quel- 
laga  (60),  whence  it  shall  continue  by  straight  line 
to  Prieto  Hill  (61)  to  the  north  of  Pisiga  plain, 
Toldo  Hill  (62),  the  Sicaya  landmarks  (63),  and 
those  of  Chapillicsa  (64),  Cabarray  (65),  Tres  Cruces 
(Three  Crosses)  (66),  Jamachuma  (67),  Quimsa- 
chata  (68),  and  Chinchillani  (69),  and,  cutting  the 
Eiver  Todos  Santos  (70),  shall  go  to  the  Payacollo 
(71)  and  Carahuano  (72)  hills,  to  Canasa  Hill  (73) 
and  Captain  Hill  (74). 

It  shall  then  continue  toward  the  north  by  the  di- 
vide of  the  range  of  Lliscaya  (75)  and  Quilhuiri  (76) 
hills,  and  from  the  summit  of  the  latter  in  a  straight 
line  to  Puquintica  Hill  (77). 

To  the  north  of  this  last  point  Chile  and  Bolivia 
agree  to  establish  between  them  the  following  frontier : 

From  Puquintica  Hill  (77)  it  shall  go  northward  by 
the  range  that  runs  to  Macaya;  shall  cut  the  Eiver 
Lauca  (78)  at  this  point  and  then  run  in  a  straight  line 
to  Chiliri  Hill  (79).  It  shall  keep  on  to  the  north  by 
the  divide  of  the  Japu  Pass  (80),  the  Quimsachata 
Hills  (81),  the  Tambo  Quemado  Pass  (82),  the  Qui- 
sini  Hills  (83),  the  Huacollo  Pass  (84),  the  sum- 
mits of  the  Payachata  Hills  (85,86),  and  Larancahua 
Hill  (87)  to  the  Casiri  Pass  (88). 

From  this  point  it  shall  go  to  the  Condoriri  Hills 
(89),  which  divide  the  waters  of  the  Sajama  and  Ac- 
huta  Eivers  from  those  of  the  Caquena  Eiver,  and 
shall  continue  by  the  ridge  which,  branching  off  from 


692 

those  hills,  goes  to  Carbiri  Hill  (91),  passing  by  the 
Achuta  Pass  (90) ;  from  Carbiri  Hill  it  shall  run  down 
its  slope  to  the  narrows  of  the  River  Cauquena  or  Cos- 
apilla (92),  above  the  inn  of  that  name  (Cosapilla). 

Then  it  shall  follow  the  bed  of  the  Eiver  Cauquena 
or  Cosapilla  to-  the  point  (93)  where  it  is  joined  by 
the  apparent  outlet  of  the  meadows  of  the  Cosapilla 
estancia  (farm),  and  from  this  point  it  shall  go  in  a 
straight  line  to  Visviri  landmark  (94); 

From  this  hill  it  shall  go  in  a  straight  line  to  the 
sanctuary  (95)  on  the  north  side  of  the  Maure,  north- 
west of  the  junction  of  this  river  with  another  which 
comes  into  it  from  the  north,  two  kilometers  north- 
west of  the  Maure  Inn.  It  shall  keep  on  toward  the 
northwest  by  the  range  which  runs  to  the  landmark 
of  Chipe  or  Tolacollo  Hill  (96),  the  last  point  of  the 
boundary. 

Within  the  six  months  following  the  ratification  of 
this  treaty  the  high  contracting  parties  shall  name 
a  commission  of  engineers  to  proceed  to  imark  out 
the  boundary  line,  the  points  of  which,  enumerated  in 
this  article,  are  indicated  in  the  appended  plan,  which 
shall  form  an  integral  part  of  the  present  treaty  in 
conformity  with  the  procedure  and  in  the  periods 
.which  shall  be  agreed  upon  by  a  special  arrangement 
between  the  two  Foreign  Offices. 

If  there  should  arise  among  the  engineers  engaged 
in  marking  the  boundary  any  disagreement  which 
could  not  be  arranged  by  the  direct  action  of  the  two 
Governments,  it  shall  be  submitted  to  the  decision 
of  His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  Germany,  in  conform- 
ity with  the  provisions  of  Article  12  of  this  Treaty. 

The  high  contracting  parties  shall  recognize  the 
private  rights  of  natives  and  foreigners,  if  legally 
acquired,  in  the  territory  which  by  virtue  of  this  treaty 


693 

may  remain  under  the  sovereignty  of  either  of  the 
countries. 

Akticle  3.  With  the  object  of  strengthening  the  po- 
litical and  commercial  relations  between  the  two  Ee- 
publics  the  high  contracting  parties  agree  to  unite 
the  port  of  Arica  with  the  plateau  of  La  Paz  by  a 
railroad  for  the  construction  of  which  the  Government 
of  Chile  shall  contract  at  its  own  expense  within  the 
term  of  one  year  from  the  ratification  of  this  Treaty. 

The  ownership  of  the  Bolivian  section  of  this  rail- 
road shall  revert  to  Bolivia  at  the  expiration  of 
the  term  of  fifteen  years  from  the  day  on  which  it  is 
entirely  completed. 

With  the  same  object  Chile  undertakes  to  pay  the 
obligations  which  Bolivia  may  incur  by  guarantees  up 
to  5  per  cent  on  the  capital  which  may  be  invested  in 
the  following  railroads,  the  construction  of  which  shall 
begin  within  the  term  of  thirty  years :  Uyuni  to  Po- 
tosi ;  Oruro  to  La  Paz ;  Oruro,  via  Cochabamba,  to  San- 
ta Cruz;  from  La  Paz  to  the  Beni  region,  and  from 
Potosi,  via  Sucre  and  Lagunillas,  to  Santa  Cruz. 

This  obligation  shall  not  occasion  for  Chile  an  ex- 
pense greater  than  £100,000  sterling  annually  nor  in 
excess  of  £1,700,000  sterling,  which  is  fixed  as  a  max- 
imum of  what  Chile  will  devote  to  the  construction  of 
the  Bolivian  section  of  the  railway  from  Arica  to  the 
La  Paz  plateau  and  for  the  guarantees  referred  to, 
and  it  shall  be  null  and  void  at  the  conclusion  of  the 
thirty  years  above  indicated. 

The  construction  of  the  Bolivian  section  from  Arica 
to  the  Bolivian  plateau,  as  well  as  that  of  the  other 
railroads  which  may  be  constructed  with  the  Chilean 
Government's  guaranty,  shall  be  a  matter  of  special 
arrangements  between  the  two  Governments,  and  pro- 
vision shall  be  made  in  them  for  affording  facilities 


694 

for  commercial  interchange  between  the  two  countries. 

The  value  of  the  section  mentioned  shall  be  deter- 
mined by  the  amount  of  the  bid  which  shall  be  accepted 
for  the  contract  for  its  construction. 

Article  4.  The  Government  of  Chile  binds  itself  to 
deliver  to  the  Government  of  Bolivia  the  sum  of  i300,- 
000  sterling  in  cash,  in  two  payments  of  il50,000,  the 
first  payment  to  be  made  six  months  after  the  ex- 
change of  ratifications  of  this  treaty  and  the  second 
one  year  after  the  first. 

Article  5.  The  Republic  of  Chile  devotes  to  the  final 
cancellation  of  the  credits  recognized  by  Bolivia,  for 
indemnities  in  favor  of  the  mining  companies  of  Huan- 
chaca,  Oruro  and  Corocoro,  and  for  the  balance  of  the 
loan  raised  in  Chile  in  the  year  1867  the  sum  of  4,500,- 
000  pesos  gold  of  18  pence,  payable,  at  the  option  of  her 
Government,  in  cash  or  in  bonds  of  its  foreign  debt 
valued  at  their  price  in  London  on  the  day  on  which 
the  payment  is  made,  and  the  sum  of  2,000,000  pesos 
in  gold  of  18  pence,  in  the  same  form  as  the  preceding, 
for  the  cancellation  of  the  credits  arising  from  the 
following  obligations  of  Bolivia:  the  bonds  issued, 
i.  e.,  the  loan  raised  for  the  construction  of  the  rail- 
road between  Mejillones  and  Caracoles  according  to 
the  contract  of  Jury  10,  1872;  the  debt  recognized  to 
Don  Pedro  Lopez  Gama,  represented  by  Messrs.  Alsop 
&  Co.,  surrogates  of  the  former's  rights;  the  credits 
recognized  to  Don  John  G.  Meiggs,  represented  by 
Mr.  Edward  Squire,  arising  from  the  contract  entered 
into  March  20,  1876,  for  renting  nitrate  fields  in  Toco, 
and,  lastly,  the  sum  recognized  to  Don  Juan  Garday. 

Article  6.  The  Republic  of  Chile  grants  to  that 
of  Bolivia  in  perpetuity  the  amplest  and  freest  right 
of  commercial  transit  in  its  territory  and  its  Pacific 
ports. 


695 

Both  Governments  will  agree  in  special  acts  upon 
the  method  suitable  for  securing  without  prejudice  to 
their  respective  fiscal  interests,  the  object  above  in- 
dicated. 

Article  7.  The  Kepublic  of  Bolivia  shall  have  the 
right  to  establish  customs  agencies  in  the  ports  which 
it  may  designate  for  its  commerce. 

For  the  present  it  indicates  as  such  ports  for  its 
commerce  those  of  Antofagasta  and  Arica. 

The  agencies  shall  take  care  that  the  goods  in  trans- 
sit  shall  go  directly  from  the  pier  to  the  railroad  sta- 
tion and  shall  be  loaded  and  transported  to  the  Bo- 
livian custom-houses  in  wagons  closed  and  sealed  and 
with  freight  schedules  which  shall  indicate  the  num- 
ber of  packages,  their  weight  and  marks,  numbers 
and  contents,  which  shall  be  exchanged  by  receipts. 

Article  8.  Until  the  high  contracting  parties  shall 
agree  to  celebrate  a  special  commercial  treaty  the  com- 
mercial interchange  between  the  two  Republics  shall 
be  regulated  by  rules  of  the  strictest  equality  with 
those  applied  to  other  nations,  and  in  no  case  shall  any 
product  of  either  of  the  two  parties  be  placed  under 
conditions  inferior  to  those  of  a  third  party. 

All  the  natural  and  manufactured  products  of  Chile, 
therefore,  as  well  as  those  of  Bolivia,  shall  be  subject, 
on  their  entry  into  and  their  consumption  in  the  other 
country,  to  the  payment  of  the  imposts  in  force  for 
those  of  other  nations,  and  the  favors,  exemptions, 
and  privileges  which  either  of  the  two  parties  shall 
grant  to  a  third  may  be  demanded  on  equal  conditions 
by  the  other. 

The  high  contracting  parties  agree  to  accord  re- 
ciprocally on  all  railroad  lines  which  cross  their  re- 
spective territories  the  same  rates  to  the  native  prod- 
ucts of  the  other  country  that  they  accord  to  the  most 
favored  nation. 


696 

Article  9.  The  natural  and  manufactured  products 
of  Chile  and  the  nationalized  goods,  in  order  to  be 
taken  into  Bolivia,  shall  be  dispatched  with  the  proper 
consular  invoice  and  with  the  freight  schedules  spoken 
of  in  Article  7.  Cattle  of  all  kinds  and  natural  prod- 
ucts of  little  value  may  be  introduced  without  any 
formality  and  dispatched  with  the  simple  manifest 
written  in  the  custom-houses. 

Article  10.  The  natural  and  manufactured  products 
of  Bolivia  in  transit  to  foreign  countries  shall  be  ex- 
ported with  schedules  issued  by  the  Bolivian  custom- 
houses or  by  the  officers  charged  with  this  duty:  these 
schedules  shall  be  delivered  to  the  custom  agents  in 
the  respective  ports  and  the  products  embarked  with- 
out other  formality  for  foreign  markets. 

In  the  port  of  Arica  importation  shall  be  made  with 
the  same  formalities  as  in  that  of  Antofagasta,  and 
the  transit  schedules  in  this  port  shall  be  passed  with 
the  same  requirements  as  those  indicated  in  the  pre- 
vious article. 

Article  11.  Bolivia  being  unable  to  put  this  system 
into  practice  immediately,  the  present  system  estab- 
lished in  Antofagasta  shall  continue  to  be  followed  for 
the  term  of  one  year.  This  system  shall  be  extended 
to  the  port  of  Arica,  a  proper  term  being  fixed  for 
putting  into  effect  the  schedule  of  Bolivian  appraise- 
ments until  it  shall  be  possible  to  regulate  the  trade 
in  the  manner  before  indicated. 

Article  12.  All  questions  which  may  arise  with  re- 
ference to  the  interpretation  or  execution  of  the  pre- 
sent treaty  shall  be  submitted  to  the  arbitration  of 
His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  Germany. 

The  ratifications  of  this  treaty  shall  be  exchanged 
within  the  term  of  six  months,  and  the  exchange  shall 
take  place  in  the  city  of  La  Paz. 


697 

In  witness  whereof  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Eela- 
tions  of  Chile  and  the  Envoy  Extraordinary  and 
Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Bolivia  have  signed  and 
sealed  with  their  respective  seals  in  duplicate  the  pre- 
sent treaty  of  peace  and  amity,  in  the  city  of  Santiago, 
on  the  20th  of  October  of  the  year  One  Thousand  Nine 
Hundred  and  Four. 

Emilio  Bello 
A.  Gutierrez 

In  Santiago,  on  the  20th  of  October,  1904,  met  in  the 
office  of  the  Ministry  of  Foreign  Relations  of  Chile, 
the  Minister  of  the  Department,  Don  Emilo  Bello 
Codecido,  and  the  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister 
Plenipotentiary  of  Bolivia,  Don  Alberto  Gutierrez, 
duly  authorized  to  that  end  by  their  respective  Gov- 
ernments and  having  in  view  the  fact  that  the  Govern- 
ments of  Chile  and  Bolivia,  in  agreeing  upon  the  stipu- 
lations contained  in  the  Treaty  of  Peace  and  Amity 
concluded  and  signed  on  this  same  date,  agreed  to  sub- 
stitute the  customs  exemptions  solicited  by  Chile  on 
behalf  of  Chilean  natural  products  and  products  manu- 
factured therefrom  by  other  privileges  which  should 
not  stand  in  the  way  of  Bolivia's  desire  to  preserve  her 
absolute  commercial  liberty  and  having  in  view  the 
fact  that  an  accord  exists  between  the  two  Govern- 
ments for  stipulating  in  a  separate  act  the  meaning 
and  scope  of  paragraph  5  of  Article  III  of  the  said 
Treaty,  in  which  reference  is  made  to  the  facilities 
which  shall  be  granted  in  the  agreements  concerning 
railroads  to  the  commercial  intercourse  between  the 
two  countries,  have  agreed: 

The  natural  and  manufactured  products  of  Chile 
taken  into  Bolivia  shall  enjoy  on  the  railroads  which 
may  be  constructed  in  Bolivian  territory  under  the 


698 

Chilean  Government's  guarantee  a  rebate  of  not  less 
than  10  per  cent  on  the  freight  tariffs  in  operation  on 
those  railroads. 

Bolivia  shall  take  the  steps  necessary  for  according 
the  same  or  a  similar  favor  to  Chilean  products  on  the 
the  Bolivian  section  of  the  railroad  from  Antofagasta 
to  Oruro. 

Therefore,  both  in  the  conventions  which  the  Gov- 
ernments of  Chile  and  Bolivia  may  draw  up  for  the  con- 
struction of  railroads  in  conformity  with  the  provi- 
sions of  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  and  Amity 
and  in  the  contract  for  the  construction  and  exploita- 
tion of  the  various  lines  there  provided  for  there  shall 
be  stipulated  the  obligation  of  granting  to  Chilean 
products  the  rebate  referred  to. 

In  witness  whereof  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Bela- 
tions  of  Chile  and  the  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of 
Bolivia  signed  this  protocol  in  duplicate  and  sealed  it 
with  their  respective  seals. 

Emilio  Bello 
a.  gutiekrez. 

And  whereas  the  Treaty  and  the  Protocol  herein- 
above written  have  been  ratified  by  me,  with  the  ap- 
proval of  the  National  Congress  and  the  respective 
ratifications  have  been  exchanged  in  the  city  of  La  Paz 
the  10th  day  of  the  month  of  March ; 

Therefore,  in  the  exercise  of  the  power  vested  in  me 
by  section  19  of  Article  73  of  the  Political  Constitution 
I  will  and  decree  that  they  be  fulfilled  and  put  into 
effect  in  all  particulars  as  law  of  the  Republic. 

Given  in  my  office  in  the  citv  of  Santiago,  March  31, 
1905. 

Jebmaet  Riesco 
Luis  A.  Vergara 


699 

Protocol  of  Arbitration,  signed  in  Washington,  D.  C, 
Between  Delegates  of  Chile  and  Peru  on  July 
20,  1922. 

Assembled  in  Washington,  D.  C,  pursuant  to  the  in- 
vitation of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  of 
America  for  the  purpose  of  reaching  a  solution  of  the 
long  standing  controversy  with  respect  to  the  unful- 
filled provisions  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  of  October  20, 
1883,  the  undersigned  representatives  of  Peru  and 
Chile,  to  wit: 

Don  Carlos  Aldunate  and  Don  Luis  Izquiredo,  En- 
voys Extraordinary  and  Ministers  Plenipotentiary  of 
Chile  on  Special  Mission ;  and 

Don  Meliton  F.  Porras  and  Don  Hernan  Velarde, 
Envoys  Extraordinary  and  Ministers  Plenipotentiary 
of  Peru  on  Special  Mission; 

After  exchanging  their  respective  full  powers,  have 
agreed  upon  the  following : 

Article  1.  It  is  hereby  recorded  that  the  only  diffi- 
culties arising  out  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace,  regarding 
which  the  two  countries  have  not  been  able  to  reach  an 
agreement,  are  questions  arising  out  of  the  unfulfilled 
stipulations  of  Article  III  of  said  Treaty. 

Article  2.  The  difficulties  referred  to  in  the  pre- 
ceding article  will  be  submitted  to  the  arbitration  of 
the  President  of  the  United  States  of  America  who 
shall  decide  them  without  appeal  after  hearing  the 
parties  and  taking  into  consideration  'the  arguments 
and  evidence  which  they  may  present.  The  times  and 
the  procedure  shall  be  determined  by  the  arbitrator. 

Article  3.  The  present  Protocol  shall  be  submitted 
for  approval  to  the  respective  Governments  and  the 
ratifications  shall  be  exchanged  in  Washington 
through  the  diplomatic  representatives  of  Chile  and 
Peru  within  the  maximum  period  of  three  months. 


700 

Signed  and  sealed  in  duplicate  in  Washington,  D.  C, 
the  Twentieth  of  July,  One  Thousand,  Nine  Hundred 
and  Twenty- two. 

Carlos  Aldunate  Luis  Izquierdo 

M.  F.  Porras  Hernan  Velarde 


Supplementary  Act  of  the  Protocol  of  Arbitration, 
Signed  in  Washington,  D.  C,  Between  Delegates 
of  Chile  and  Peru  on  July  20, 1922. 

In  order  to  determine  with  precision  the  scope  of 
the  arbitration  provided  for  in  Article  2  of  the  Pro- 
tocol signed  on  this  date,  the  undersigned  agree  to 
place  on  record  hereby  the  following  points : 

First.  The  following  question,  raised  by  Peru  at  the 
session  of  the  Conference  held  on  May  27th  last,  is  in- 
cluded in  the  arbitration : 

"For  the  purpose  of  determining  the  manner  in 
which  the  stipulations  of  Article  III  of  the  Treaty 
of  Ancon  shall  be  fulfilled  there  shall  be  submitted 
to  arbitration  the  question  whether,  in  the  present 
circumstances,  the  plebiscite  shall  or  shall  not  be 
held." 

The  Government  of  Chile,  on  its  part,  may  present  to 
the  arbitrator  all  the  arguments  that  it  may  deem 
necessary  to  its  case. 

Second.  In  case  that  it  is  decided  that  the  plebiscite 
shall  be  held,  the  arbitrator  is  empowered  to  determine 
the  conditions  under  which  it  shall  be  held. 

Third.  If  the  arbitrator  should  decide  that  the  plebi- 
scite shall  not  be  held,  both  parties,  at  the  request  of 


701 

either  of  them,  shall  discuss  the  situation  created  by 
this  decision. 

It  is  understood,  in  the  interest  of  peace  and  of  good 
order,  that,  in  this  event,  and  pending  an  agreement 
as  to  the  disposition  of  the  territory,  the  administra- 
tive organization  of  the  provinces  shall  not  be  dis- 
turbed. 

Fourth.  The  two  Governments  shall  solicit,  in  case 
that  they  should  not  reach  an  agreement,  the  good 
offices  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  of 
America,  in  order  that  an  agreement  may  be  reached. 

Fifth.  The  pending  claims  regarding  Tarata  and 
Chilcaya  likewise  are  included  in  the  arbitration,  sub- 
ject to  the  determination  of  the  final  fate  of  the  terri- 
tory to  which  Article  III-  of  the  said  Treaty  refers. 

This  Act  is  an  integral  part  of  the  Protocol  to  which 
it  refers. 

Signed  and  sealed  in  duplicate  in  Washington,  D.  C, 
the  Twentieth  of  July,  One  Thousand,  Nine  Hundred 
and  Twenty-two. 

Carlos  Aldtjtstate  Luis  Izquierdo 

M.  F.  Porras  Hernan  Velarde 


MISCELLANEOUS. 


705 

Electoral  Law  Fixing  the  Value  of  Real  Estate,  In- 
come, etc.,  Required  for  the  Exercise 
of  Right  of  Suffrage. 

[Translation.] 

Santiago,  November  3,  1874. 

Whereas  the  National  Congress  has  approved  the 
following  bill : 

Sole  Article.  The  value  of  the  real  estate,  the  cap- 
ital invested  in  any  enterprise  or  industry,  the  exer- 
cise of  an  industry  or  profession,  the  holding  of  a  post 
and  the  enjoyment  of  an  income  or  usufruct,  referred 
to  in  Sections  1  and  2  of  Article  VIII  of  the  Constitu- 
tion shall  be: 

In  the  provinces  of  Atacama,  Coquimbo,  Aconcagua, 
Santiago  and  Valparaiso:  real  estate  valued  at  not 
less  than  one  thousand  pesos  or  an  invested  capital  of 
two  thousand  pesos,  or  the  exercise  of  a  trade,  an 
industry  or  profession,  the  income  of  which  will  be 
at  least  two  hundred  pesos  annually. 

In  the  provinces  of  Colchagua,  Curico,  Talca,  Lima- 
res,  Maule,  Nuble,  Concepcion  and  Arauco,  indiscrimi- 
nately, the  value  of  the  property  shall  be  five  hundred 
pesos,  the  invested  capital  one  thousand,  and  the  in- 
come from  a  trade,  an  industry  or  profession,  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  pesos  annually. 

In  the  provinces  of  Valdivia,  Llanquihue  and  Chil- 
hoe,  the  invested  capital  five  hundred,  the  income,  pro- 
fession, trade,  or  industry  one  hundred,  and  real  estate 
four  hundred  pesos. 

It  is  a  presumption  of  law  {Presumptio  juris  et  de 
jure)  that  he  who  knows  how  to  read  and  write  has  the 
income  required  by  this  law. 


706 

Whereas,  heard  by  the  Council  of  State,.I  have  given 
my  approval  and  sanction,  wherefore  I  order  its  pro- 
mulgation and  its  carrying  out  in  all  its  parts  as  a 
law  of  the  Eepublic. 

Federico  Errazuriz. 

Eulojio  Altamirano. 


Electoral  Law  of  Chile  Promulgated  in  1874. 

[Translation.] 

Santiago,  November  12,  1874. 

Whereas,  the  National  Congress-  has  discussed  and 
approved  the  following  bill : 

Chapter  I. 

Relative  to  the  Registration  of  the  Voters. 

Article  I.  In  the  register  of  voters  that  shall  be 
kept  in  conformity  with  the  stipulations  of  this  law, 
there  shall  be  inscribed  all  Chileans,  born  and  natural- 
ized, who  desire  to  exercise  the  right  of  suffrage  and 
who  are  possessed  of  the  following  qualifications : 

1.  Twenty-five  years  of  age,  if  single,  and  twenty- 
one  if  married. 

2.  To  be  able  to  read  and  write. 

3.  To  own  real  estate  or  an  invested  capital  of  the 
value  required  by  the  law,  or  to  exercise  a  trade,  an 
industry  or  profession,  or  to  hold  a  post,  or  to  enjoy 
an  income,  or  usufruct,  the  value  of  each  of  these  being 
in  proportion  to  the  value  of  the  real  estate  or  the 
invested  capital  just  referred  to  above. 

The  value  of  the  real  estate  or  the  invested  capital 
shall  be  determined  for  each  province  by  the  law  which 
is  to  be  passed  in  conformity  with  the  prescriptions 


707 

of  Article  VIII  of  the  Constitution  (Law  of  November 
3,  1874). 

Article  II.  The  following  shall  not  be  registered, 
even  if  they  possess  the  qualifications  enumerated  in 
the  preceding  article: 

1.  Those  who,  physically  or  morally,  are  incapable 
of  enjoying  the  full  use  of  their  reason. 

2.  Those  who  are  in  domestic  service. 

3.  Those  who  at  the  time  of  registration  might  be 
on  trial  for  misdemeanor  or  crime,  subject  to  a  cor- 
poral or  degrading  penalty,  and  those  who  have  been 
sentenced  for  a  similar  crime  or  misdemeanor,  unless 
they  have  been  rehabilitated. 

4.  Those  who  have  been  guilty  of  fraudulent  bank- 
ruptcy and  have  not  been  rehabilitated. 

5.  Those  who  have  accepted  posts  or  distinctions 
from  foreign  Governments  without  special  permit  from 
Congress,  unless  they  have  been  rehabilitated  by  the 
Senate. 

6.  The  conscripts  and  soldiers  of  the  standing 
army,  the  navy  and  the  police  corps. 

Article  III.  The  register  of  voters  shall  be  sepa- 
rately kept  for  sub-departments  (sub-delegaciones)  the 
population  of  which  would  not  be  under  2,000  inhabi- 
tants, the  register  being  subdivided  into  sections  of 
not  less  than  one  hundred  and  fifty  and  not  more  than 
two  hundred  qualified  voters.  These  sub-departments, 
the  population  of  which  shall  be  less  than  that  number 
shall  be  added  to  the  following  one  or  ones,  or  in  ab- 
sence of  this  to  the  preceding  one,  according  to  their 
numerical  order. 

The  register  shall  be  kept  in  a  bound  book,  the 
sheets  of  which  shall  be  stamped  with  the  seal  of  the 
municipality. 


708 

In  every  sheet  there  should  be  a  margin  at  the  left, 
and  the  number  of  the  registered,  his  Christian  name, 
family  name  and  mother's  family  name,  the  place  of 
his  birth,  his  domicile  or  present  residence,  his  state 
and  his  profession  or  trade,  shall  appear  in  tabulated 
vertical  columns. 

The  register  shall  conform  in  every  way  to  the 
model  inclosed  herewith  as  number   *   *   * 

Article  IV.  The  register  of  voters  shall  be  renewed 
every  three  years,  at  the  time  set  forth  by  this  law 


Chapter  II. 
Relative  to  the  Keeping  of  the  Register. 

Article  XV.  The  Qualifying  Boards  shall  inscribe 
in  the  register  every  Chilean,  born  or  naturalized,  who 
shall  come  to  them  for  that  purpose,  provided  he  pos- 
sesses the  qualifications  mentioned  in  Article  I,  that 
he  is  not  included  in  any  of  the  inabilities  mentioned 
in  Article  II,  and  provided  that  he  resides  in  the  re- 
spective subdelegation. 


Electoral  Law  of  Chile,  Promulgated  February 
21, 1914. 

[Translation.] 

Chapter  III. 

#  #  «  #  *  #  #  *  * 

Article   23.     The  registration  committee   shall  in- 
scribe in  the  voters  register,  of  the  respective  sub- 


709 

department,  the  male  Chilean  citizens  who  request  it 
and  who  possesses  the  following  qualifications. 

1.  Twenty-one  years  of  age. 

2.  Able  to  read  and  write ;  and 

3.  Residing  in  the  respective  sub-department. 
Article   24.     There    shall   not   be   registered,    even 

though  possessing  the  requisites  enumerated  in  Ar- 
ticle 23,  those  who  have  lost  their  citizenship  because  of 

1.  Corporal  or  degrading  penalty. 

2.  Fraudulent  bankruptcy. 

3.  Accepted  posts,  performed  services  or  pensions 
received  from  a  foreign  government  without  special 
permit  from  Congress;  and 

4.  Naturalization  by  a  foreign  country. 

Those  who  have  lost  their  citizenship  and  have  been 
rehabilitated  by  the  Senate  may,  nevertheless,  be  reg- 
istered. 

Nor  shall  there  be  registered  those  whose  citizen- 
ship has  been  suspended  by  reason  of 

1.  Physical  or  moral  incapacity,  hindering  their 
free  and  conscious  behavior  . 

2.  Domestic  service. 

3.  Trial  for  crime  and  misdemeanor,  subject  to 
corporal  or  degrading  penalty. 

There  shall  not  be  registered,  furthermore, 

1.  The  individuals  serving  on  the  city  and  rural 
police  forces,  or  performing  any  duties  therefor. 

2.  The  conscripts  and  soldiers  of  the  standing  army 
and  the  navy ;  and 

3.  The  regular  clergy. 


710 

Political  Constitution  of  Peru  Promulgated 
November  13, 1860. 

[Translation.] 

Chapter  VI. 

Citizenship. 

Article  XXXVII.  All  Peruvians  over  twenty-one 
years  of  age,  and  those  under  that  age  who  are  mar- 
ried, are  citizens. 

Article  XXXVIII.  All  citizens  who  can  read  and 
write,  or  who  are  heads  of  shops,  or  who  own  some 
real  property,  or  who  are  taxpayers,  have  the  right 
to  vote. 

The  exercise  of  this  right  shall  be  regulated  by  law. 


Election  Law  of  Peru  Promulgated  April  4,  1861. 

[Translation.] 

Chapter  I. 

The  Right  to  Vote. 

Article  I.  Married  citizens,  or  those  over  twenty- 
one  years  of  age,  who  can  read  and  write,  or  who  are 
heads  of  shops,  or  who  own  some  real  property,  or  who 
are  taxpayers,  and  whose  names  are  found  upon  the 
civic  register,  shall  have  the  right  to  vote. 
Article  II.  The  following  cannot  vote : 
1.  Those  who  have  lost  the  right  of  citizenship  or 
whose  exercise  of  such  right  is  suspended,  in  accord- 
ance with  Articles  40  and  41  of  the  Constitution. 


711 

2.  Ministers  of  State,  Prefects,  Sub-Prefects,  Gov- 
ernors, and  Police  Agents. 

3.  Officers  of  the  National  Army  or  Navy  and  of 
the  Constabulary. 

4.  The  enlisted  men  of  the  Constabulary  or  of  the 
army  and  the  members  of  the  crews  of  the  ships  of 
the  national  navy. 

5.  Beggars  and  domestic  servants. 

Article  III.  Officers  of  the  Army  and  of  the  Navy, 
who  are  not  exercising  any  command,  may  vote  in  the 
parish  in  which  they  are  residing. 


Census  and  Civic  Registry  Law  of  Peru,  Promulgated 
May  22,  1861. 

[Translation.] 

Article  I.  The  general  population  register  is  the 
book  upon  which  are  inscribed  the  names  of  all  the  in- 
habitants of  each  one  of  the  provinces  into  which  the 
Republic  is  divided,  with  the  respective  place  of  birth, 
sex,  age,  condition,  profession  or  trade,  and  the  quali- 
fications specified  in  Article  38  of  the  Constitution. 


Decree  Issued  by  President  of  Peru,  Regarding 
Elections,  Bated  July  14, 1919. 

[Translation.] 

Considering  that  a  plebiscite  and  a  call  to  general 
elections  has  been  decided  upon,  it  is  necessary  to 
that  effect  to  find,  in  the  present  circumstances,  a 
simple  and  rapid  means  of  procedure  that  will,  at 
the  same  time,  guarantee  the  true  expression  of  the 


712 

popular   wall.     Therefore,   and  with  the   unanimous 
approval  of  the  Council  of  Ministers,  I  decree: 

Article  I.  All  Peruvians  over  twenty-one  years  of 
age,  or  married,  who  can  read  and  write,  shall  vote 
in  the  elections  and  in  the  plebiscite.  Army  and  navy 
officers  also  shall  vote  in  the  plebiscite.  All  other  pro- 
hibitions of  the  electoral  law  shall  remain  in  effect- 
Article  II.  Only  those  who  are  inscribed  in  the 
military  registers  shall  vote  in  the  elections  and  in 
the  plebiscite.  The  military  registers  used  in  the  last 
elections  will  serve  to  verify  such  inscription. 

Article  III.  The  vote  shall  be  direct,  public,  and  in 
double  ballot.  The  receiving  commission  shall  accept 
the  vote  without  demanding  further  verification  than 
the  certificate  of  miliary  inscription.  After  the  vote  is 
received,  the  chairman  of  the  receiving  commission 
shall  sign  the  said  certificate  to  prevent  its  being  used 
again. 

Article  IV.  The  voters  shall  deposit  their  votes  for 
constitutional  amendments,  for  senators  and  deputies 
to  Congress,  and  for  deputies  to  the  departmental  leg- 
islatures, in  four  separate  ballots.  The  ballots  to  be 
deposited  in  the  ballot-boxes  shall  be  signed  by  the 
voters,  while  the  duplicate  ballots  shall  be  signed  or 
sealed  by  the  chairman  of  the  receiving  commission 
and  returned  to  the  voter  to  attest  for  his  vote. 

Article  V.  The  voters  shall  scratch  out  those  ar- 
ticles referring  to  constitutional  amendments  that  they 
do  not  accept. 


713 

Chapter  Entitled  "Expulsion  of  Peruvians/'  Taken 
From  "Hacia  la  Solution"  by  Senor  Ernesto 
Barros,  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations,  Santiago, 
Chile,  1922. 

[Translation.] 

One  of  the  points  on  which  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Eelations  of  Pern  saw  fit  to  dwell  with  the  greatest 
earnestness  during  the  telegraphic  parley  opened  by 
Chile  on  December  12,  ]  921,  was  that  which  referred  to 
the  supposed  campaign  for  the  expulsion  of  Peruvian 
citizens  from  the  territory  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 

To  show  that  this  campaign  is  but  an  artifice  of  the 
Peruvian  international  policy,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  re- 
call what  we  have  already  said  in  an  annotation,  that  is, 
that  not  even  an  apparent  uniformity  has  been  main- 
tained in  formulating  the  denouncement"  of  the  expul- 
sions; but,  on  the  contrary,  appeal  has  been  made  to 
different  and  arbitrary  numbers,  which  would  natu- 
rally lead  to  the  opinion  that  the  denouncement  had  not 
been  made  with  sincerity. 

In  truth,  on  December  16th,  President  Leguia  affirmed 
to  a  correspondent  of  La  Nation  of  Santiago  that  ten 
thousand  Peruvians  had  been  expelled;  in  the  official 
communication  in  reply  to  the  Chilean  invitation,  Min- 
ister Salomon  said  that  the  number  was  eighteen  thou- 
sand ;  in  an  interview  granted  by  this  same  politician 
to  The  New  York  Times  and  published  in  the  number 
of  January  9th  of  that  daily,  he  affirmed  that  as  many 
as  a  thousand  had  been  expelled ;  and,  finally,  in  a  later 
interview,  the  same  Senor  Salomon  asserted  that  the 
number  expelled  was  five  hundred. 

It  must  be  agreed,  at  the  very  least,  that  there  is  no 
seriousness  in  accusations  that  are  subject  to  so  ex- 
traordinary a  fluctuation  from  day  to  day. 


714 

Besides,  this  discussion  as  to  the  expulsion  of  Peru- 
vians is  not  new.  Already  in  1919  the  Ministers  of  For- 
eign Relations  of  Chile  and  Peru  expressed  their  views 
on  this  subject  to  the  public  opinion  of  the  entire  world 
through  the  medium  of  diplomatic  circulars  of  im- 
portance. 

From  this  controversy  it  is  proper,  however,  to  ex- 
tract a  declaration  formulated  by  the  Minister  of  For- 
eign Relations  of  Peru,  Seiior  Tudela,  to  the  effect 
that  complaints  as  to  the  persons  expelled  did  not  refer 
to  the  territory  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  in  reference  to 
which  our  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  had  been  able 
to  exhibit  a  declaration  authorized  by  the  Consuls  resi- 
dent in  the  region,  according  to  which  its  tranquillity 
appeared  perfect. 

Senor  Tudela  said,  in  the  circular  of  December  3, 
1919: 

"  First  of  all,  it  ought  to  be  established  that  the 
new  outrages  against  the  Peruvian  population 
have  occured  in  Pisagua,  and  especially  in  Iquique, 
which  are  the  principal  ports  of  the  former  Peru- 
vian department,  to-day  the  Chilean  province  of 
Tarapaca,  in  order  to  prevent  the  confusion  that 
might  be  produced  in  the  universal  opinion  by  the 
certificates  of  the  Consular  Agents  resident  in 
Tacna  and  Arica,  who  testified  that  in  the  latter 
Peruvian  provinces,  also  occupied  by  Chile,  there 
has  been  no  attack  whatsoever  on  Peruvians.' ' 

Hence  there  exists  an  official  Peruvian  document,  of 
a  relatively  recent  date,  in  which  it  is  established  that 
the  expulsions  of  which  complaint  is  made  do  not  refer 
to  the  territory  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  which  is  the  only 
one  in  which  they  might  be  designed  to  produce  an 
effect  favorable  to  our  country  by  inclining  the  bal- 
ance of  the  plebiscite  in  her  favor. 


715 

It  would  be  an  absurdity  to  say  that  the  Chilean  au- 
thorities of  Tacna  and  Arica  have  never  expelled  any 
Peruvian  citizens  from  these  territories.  It  would  be 
an  affirmation  as  extraordinary  as  are  the  Peruvian 
affirmations  on  which  we  have  just  commented. 

There  have  been  expulsions  of  Peruvians  in  Tacna 
and  Arica.  The  Government  has  held,  from  the 
moment  in  which  that  territory  became  subject,  accord- 
ing to  an  express  provision  of  the  Treaty  of  1883,  to 
the  Chilean  laws,  that  it  could  and  ought  to  apply  them 
in  it  as  in  the  rest  of  the  country. 

Our  laws  are  generous  and  liberal  toward  all  for- 
eigners ;  they  assure  them  amply  in  the  exercise  of  all 
their  rights;  but  they  are  at  the  same  time  severe  in 
respect  of  those  that  attempt,  by  availing  themselves 
of  that  liberty,  to  hatch  up  conspiracies  against  the 
State,  of  whatsoever  nationality  the  authors  of  this 
crime  may  be. 

In  the  archives  of  the  Ministry  of  Foreign  Relations 
there  exists  a  small  bundle  of  papers  that  constitute  a 
minute  process  of  each  case  of  expulsion  that  has  oc- 
curred. From  the  date  of  the  incorporation  of  those 
territories  within  the  sovereignty  of  Chile  there  have 
been  fifty-two  cases,  all  perfectly  justified,  as  a  gener- 
ous measure  of  the  authorities  against  individuals  that 
might  have  received  a  punishment  in  conformity  with 
the  Chilean  laws  for  their  criminal  acts  and  whom  it 
was  preferred  to  remove  from  the  territory  in  order 
that  they  might  make  their  living  honestly  elsewhere. 

Once  there  were  six  or  seven  agitators  and  leaders 
that  preached  disobedience  and  rebellion  against  the 
constituted  authority  and  that  published  in  the  cities 
of  the  north,  in  Lima  and  in  Santiago,  false  and  mali- 
cious reports  that  sowed  distrust  everywhere  and  pre- 
vented the  possibility  of  a  good  understanding  between 
the  two  countries. 


716 

On  another  occasion  they  were/ pettifoggers /that  ex- 
ploited the  indigenous  population,  pettifoggers  whose 
compulsory  retirement  from  those  regions  has  been 
hailed  as  a  veritable  salvation  by  their  victims. 

On  another  occasion  they  were  deserters  from  the 
Peruvian  army,  who,  surprised  with  their  equipment 
and  mounts  and  interned  in  Chilean  territory,  were  de- 
livered over  to  the  nearest  Peruvian  police  post  by  our 
forces  of  carbineers,  in  order  that  they  might  suffer 
the  punishment  that  attached  to  their  unpatriotic  con- 
duct. . 

At  other  times,  finally,  they  were  pimps,  exploiters 
of  white  slavery,  for  whom  the  Chilean  law  of  residence 
designates  expulsion  from  the  territory  as  a  punish- 
ment. 

Outside  of  these  cases,  there  have  existed  none. 

There  has  existed,  however,  an  old  campaign,  crude 
in  its  methods,  nugatory  in  its  results,  designed  to  im- 
pute to  our  authorities  a  policy  of  violent  persecution 
and  of  violent  expulsion  of  Peruvian  citizens  of  Tacna 
and  Arica. 

In  order  to  silence  it,  once  and  for  all,  in  replying  to 
the  Peruvian  Chancellery  during  the  course  of  the 
controversy  of  December,  it  was  said  on  Chile's  part 
that  for  the  purpose  of  the  plebiscite  we  would  grant 
all  kinds  of  facilities  for  the  return  of  the  Peruvian 
population  that  might  prove  itself  to  have  been  ex- 
pelled by  violence  from  Tacna  and  Arica. 

The  whole  Peruvian  campaign  ought  to  have  termi- 
nated there.  The  expulsions  could  have  no  other  effect 
than  to  improve  our  plebiscitary  position.  Well  then : 
it  may  now  be  seen  how  we  have  sought  to  annul  that 
factor  of  which  we  had  no  need,  in  other  respects,  to 
take  advantage  in  order  to  obtain  the  consolidation  of 
our  sovereignty  in  those  territories. 


/ 


717 


CONCRETE    CASES. 


It  is  not  difficult  to  prove  with  a  few  concrete  cases 
the  method  that  has  been  followed  in  Peru  by  this 
policy  of  propaganda  against  Chile,  which  has  imputed 
to  us  persecutions  and  expulsions  in  respect  of  her 
citizens. 

It  has  been  the  practice  of  the  Government  of  Peru 
to  offer  return  passage  to  the  country  to  all  the  resi- 
dents of  Tacna  and  Arica  that  might  wish  to  declare 
that  they  had  left  under  expulsion  by  the  Chilean  au- 
thorities of  the  territory. 

This  assertion  Is  substantiated  by  the  following 
document,  the  original  of  which  is  preserved  in  the 
Ministry  of  Foreign  Eelations  of  Chile,  subscribed  to 
by  the  Peruvian  citizens  Pedro  A.  Quea  Sologuren 
and  Antero  Berrios  Gil: 

"On  June  3,  1919,  appeared  the  Peruvian  citi- 
zens Pedro  Aristides  Quea  Sologuren  and  Antero 
Berrios  Gil,  residents  of  this  city,  and  they  set 
forth  that  in  the  month  of  April  last  they  decided 
to  make  a  trip  to  Lima,  the  first  in  order  to  be 
treated  for  a  disease  of  the  eye,  and  the  second  to 
accompany  him ;  that  Don  Hector  Velez,  sub-pre- 
fect of  Locumba,  who  was  occasionally  in  Tacna, 
indicated  to  them  that  they  might  go  by  land  as 
far  as  his  department,  where  he  would  give  them 
the  necessary  facilities  for  their  passages  for  the 
account  of  the  Peruvian  Government ;  and  with 
this  promise  they  left  the  city  on  the  twelfth,  ar- 
riving the  next  day  at  Locumba,  where  Senor 
Velez  had  already  explained  to  them  that  the 
order  for  free  passages  had  been  suspended;  but 
that,  by  signing  a  minute  of  protest  in  which  they 
would  state  that  they  had  been  expelled  from 
Tacna  by  the  authorities,  he  would  take  the  neces- 
sary steps  in  the  case,  in  order  that  they  might 
continue  their  journey;  that  they  refused,  causing 


718 

him  to  note  that  they  did  not  deem  it  prudent  or 
reasonable  to  sign  such  a  minute,  inasmuch  as 
they  had  not  been  subject  to  any  such  expulsion; 
and  that  such  was  the  case  that,  in  view  of  the 
difficulties  they  had  encountered,  they  were  dis- 
posed to  come  back  to  this  city.  Senor  Velez  re- 
plied to  them  that  they  were  the  ones  who  must 
decide ;  whereupon  they  set  out  to  return,  arriving 
here  on  the  seventeenth  of  the  same  month. 

In  testimony  whereof  the  present  signed,  with 
the  witnesses  that  subscribe. 

Pedro  Aristides  Quea  Sologuren. 
Antero  Berrios  Gil." 

The  Government  of  Chile  is  informed,  on  the  other 
hand,  of  a  series  of  valueless  certifications  granted  by 
the  Peruvian  authorities,  far  removed  from  the  places 
of  the  occurrences,  which  take  for  granted  as  estab- 
lished certain  facts  on  which  they  can  not  rely,  and 
which,  as  a  general  rule,  have  been  false. 

These  certificates  are  wont  to  assume  almost  inno- 
cent forms,  as  occurs  in  the  case  of  the  following : 

"Legation  of  Peru  in  Bolivia. 
The  undersigned  certifies  that  Antonio  Mollo, 
a  Peruvian  citizen,  native  of  Putre   (Arica),  has 
been  expelled  from  this  place  by  the  Chilean  au- 
thorities. 

Jose  Maria  Barreto, 
First  Secretary  of  the  Legation  of  Peru. 
La  Paz,  January  29,  1919. 

( There  is  a  seal  that  says :  '  Legation  of  Peru  in 
Bolivia')." 

How  can  the  execution  of  an  act  that  is  said  to  have 
been  effected  by  the  Chilean  authorities  in  Putre  be 
certified  to  in  La  Paz? 

Undoubtedly  these  certificates  have  no  value  what- 
soever.   They  were  granted  on  the  simple  declaration 


719 

of  those  that  said  they  had  been  expelled,  to  whom  was 
offered,  on  the  other  hand,  facilities  of  travel  and  labor. 

During  the  years  1919  and  1920,  the  Government  of 
Peru  supplied  passages,  for  which  it  paid,  to  all  the 
Peruvians  that  desired  to  leave,  contracting  for  them 
directly  with  the  Pacific  Steam  Navigation  Company. 
Many  persons  solicited  these  passages  in  order  to  make 
the  journey  gratis,  of  course,  without  having  been  ex- 
pelled, and  often  many  of  them  returned  afterward  to 
Tacna  on  their  own  account.  These  passages  were  ar- 
ranged in  Lima  mainly  by  Don  Manuel  Belaunde  and 
Doctor  Parodi,  former  inhabitants  of  the  latter  city; 
and  all  those  that  had  some  influential  friend  or  rela- 
tive in  the  former  city  secured  passage,  and  even  at 
times  without  soliciting  them. 

Thus  is  made  up  the  great  number  of  Peruvian  ex- 
pulsions of  which  Peruvian  propaganda  makes  so 
much. 

Two  certificates  that  show  the  truthfulness  of  what 
we  have  just  affirmed  are  copied  here : 

* l  Sefiora  Clotilde  Carbonell  de  Bacigalupe,  resi- 
dent in  the  Avenida  Baquedano,  corner  of  Amuna- 
tegui,  declares  that  in  the  month  of  May,  1919,  her 
son  Juan  Cores,  who  is  in  Lima,  announced  to  her 
that  he  had  obtained  from  the  Peruvian  Govern- 
ment two  cabin  passages  that  he  was  authorized  to 
claim  at  the  agency  of  the  English  steamship  com- 
pany in  Arica,  in  order  that,  if  she  desired,  she 
might  go  to  that  capital,  and  that  she,  in  order  not 
to  lose  the  passages  mentioned,  resolved  to  make 
the  journey  as  a  recreation,  accompanied  by  her 
daughter  Carmen,  returning  two  months  after- 
ward to  this  city  on  her  own  account. 

Clotilde  Carbonell  de  Bacigalupe. 
Tacna,  March,  1920. " 


720 

"In  Tacna,  on  February  24,  1922,  appeared  Don 
Jose  Antonio  Albarracin,  a  Peruvian,  forty-one 
years  of  age,  who  resided  at  80  Colon  Street,  and, 
interrogated,  he  deposed:  ' About  two  years  ago 
my  brother,  Victorio  Gonzalez,  who  resides  in 
Lima,  wrote  me  to  suggest  that  I  come  to  live 
there,  and  to  that  end  he  had  obtained  from  the 
Peruvian  Government  six  deck  passages  that  I 
might  claim  at  the  agency  of  the  English  steam- 
ship company  in  Arica,  in  order  to  move,  with  my 
family.  A  few  days  afterwards,  the  agency  of  the 
company  mentioned,  notified  me  by  telephone, 
through  the  medium  of  the  manager  of  the  Hotel 
Eaiteri,  in  this  city,  Sehor  Landa,  that  the  pas- 
sages were  at  my  disposal;  but  I  replied  that  I 
should  not  use  them,  because  neither  T  nor  my 
family  desired  to  leave  Tacna  at  the  moment. 
Jose  Antonio  Albarracin.  '  M 

The  Government  of  Chile  has  succeeded  in  estab- 
lishing tranquillity  in  such  a  manner  in  Tacna  and 
Arica  that  at  present  and  for  several  years  there  have 
not  even  existed  patriotic  leagues,  institutions  that  at 
other  times  might  have  been  deemed  probably  guilty 
of  transgression,  which  our  courts  proceeded  to  punish 
as  the  common  misdemeanors  that  they  were. 

A  concrete  case  comes  to  mind  to  show  the  character 
of  the  regime  of  the  Government  of  those  provinces  at 
the  present  hour. 

About  the  middle  of  January,  1922,  a  Peruvian  citi- 
zen, Manuel  Anze,  of  this  city  complained  that  he  had 
received  an  anonymous  letter  signed  "The  Secretary 
of  the  Committee, ' '  in  which  he  was  told  that  he  must 
abandon  the  territory  within  the  period  of  forty-eight 
hours,  as  being  a  Peruvian.  Sefior  Anze  was  offered 
guaranties  of  all  kinds,  and  this  gentleman  is  living 
tranquilly  in  Tacna.    In  respect  of  this  case,  the  au^ 


721 

thorities  caused  an  investigation  to  be  made  for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  there  existed  associa- 
tions organized  for  the  purpose  of  persecuting  the 
Peruvian  element,  and  the  result  was  negative. 

Seeking  an  explanation  of  this  case,  it  was  possible 
to  establish  with  every  appearance  of  likelihood  that 
the  notification  received  by  Seiior  Anze  was  the  re- 
sult of  a  disloyal  procedure  on  the  part  of  his  fellow- 
countrymen;  for  in  those  days  this  gentleman  an- 
nounced that  he  proposed  to  open  an  apothecary's 
business  and  to  sell  at  a  price  lower  than  that  of  the 
shops  already  established,  which  belonged  to  two  of 
his  fellow-countrymen. 

To  mention  another  concrete  case  of  false  denounce- 
ments of  expulsions,  recourse  may  be  had  to  one  de- 
nounced by  El  Tiempo  of  Lima  on  February  21,  1922, 
when  it  gave  an  account  of  the  arrival  of  a  Spanish 
subject,  Basilio  Iriarte,  in  the  capacity  of  a  person 
expelled  from  Tacna,  with  grave  prejudice  to  his  in- 
terests, for  having  expressed  his  sympathy  with  Peru. 
An  investigation  was  made  into  the  case,  and  it  is 
possible  to  establish  what  is  recorded  in  the  documents 
copied,  as  follows: 

"Vice-Consulate  of  Spain  in  Tacna  and  Arica, 
"(Number  7.)  Tacna,  February  24,  1922. 

"Sir: 

"I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt 
of  your  favor  number  243,  under  the  date  -of 
yesterday,  in  which  you  inquire  of  me  as  to 
whether  I  have  any  knowledge  of  or  any  data  as 
to  the  person  of  the  Spanish  citizen,  Basilio  Iri- 
arte, who,  as  it  is  said,  lived  until  a  month  ago 
in  this  province,  and  regarding  whom  you  have 
been  unable  to  obtain  any  information. 

"In  reply  to  your  letter  mentioned,  I  regret 
to  have  to  inform  you  that  in  the  registers  of 
this  Vice-Consulate  there  is  no  record  of  any 
such  Iriarte,   and  he  has  never  presented  him- 


722 


self  at  this  office  to  solicit  a  passport  or  any  other 
document. 

With  courteous  salutations, 

M.  Casanovas. 
"Vice-Consul  of  Spain  in  Tacna  and  Arica, 
to  Senor  Don  Luis  Barcelo  Lira, 
Intendant  of  the  Province,  Tacna. 
Tacna. 

"Vice-Consulate  of  Spain  in  Tacna  and  Akica, 

"(Number  10.) 

"Sir:  Tacna,  March  7,  1922. 

*  i  Eef erring  to  my  note  number  7  of  the  twenty- 
fourth  of  last  month,  in  which  I  informed  you 
that  I  had  no  data  as  to  the  person  of  the  Spanish 
subject,  Basilio  Iriarte,  I  am  pleased  to  inclose 
with  the  present  a  copy  of  an  official  communica- 
tion received  from  our  Vice-Consulate  of  the  na- 
tion at  Iquique,  which  I  deem  to  be  of  some  inter- 
est. 

"On  my  part  I  can  now  report  that  the  person 
mentioned,  under  pretext  of  being  a  Spaniard, 
requested  of  the  'Sociedad  Espanola  de  Benefi- 
cencia'  aid  to  the  extent  of  two  hundred  pesos  in 
order  to  return  to  the  south,  as  he  said  that  an 
unfortunate  transaction  in  sheep  that  he  had  un- 
dertaken in  Bolivia  and  the  bad  state  of  his 
health  in  that  Republic  had  placed  him  in  the 
difficult  situation  in  which  he  was.  I  ought  to 
make  it  clear  to  you  that  this  aid  was  denied  him, 
as  he  was  caught  in  several  contradictions  in  his 
assertions  made  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  this 
assistance,  which  he  promised  to  return  on  his 
arrival  at  his  destination. 

"It  is  hardly  necessary  to  mention  that  after 
his  evil  conduct  had  been  discovered,  he  immedi- 
ately disappeared  from  that  city. 

"I  take  this  new  opportunity  to  repeat  to  you 
the  sentiments  of  my  consideration. 

M.  Casanovas. 
"Vice-Consul  of  Spain  in  Tacna  and  Arica, 

to  Senor  Don  Luis  Barcelo  Lira, 

Intendant  of  the  Province, 

Tacna. 


723 

' '  Vice-Consulate  of  Spain,  Iquique. 
"(Number  38.) 
"Mr.  Consul: 

"I  beg  you  to  have  the  goodness  to  give  me 
what  information  you  can  as  to  the  Spanish  sub- 
ject, Basilio  Iriarte,  a  native  of  Bermeo,  who,  on 
the  way  from  Punta  Arenas,  passed  through  this 
city  some  months  ago,  and  is  registered  at  the 
Consulate  of  the  nation  in  Valparaiso. 

"Our  compatriot,  Sehor  Manuel  Montes,  has 
informed  me  that  he  has  seen  him  at  Tacna,  and 
the  press  of  today  alludes  to  a  presentation  that 
Iriarte  has  made  to  our  Minister  in  Lima. 

"When  he  passed  through  this  city,  I  was  able 
to  prove  that  Iriarte  is  not  a  reliable  person.  He 
passed  himself  off  here  as  a  *  buyer  of  ranches ' 
for  a  respectable  firm  of  Punta  Arenas,  and  he 
said  that  he  was  studying  the  place  with  a  view 
to  the  introduction  of  frozen  meat.  In  my  judg- 
ment, he  either  had  an  unbalanced  mind  or  he 
was  a  common  scoundrel. 

' '  Thanking  you  for  your  information,  I  beseech 
God  to  keep  you  many  years. 

Martin  Pinedo. 
"Inquique,  February  23,  1922, 

"The  Vice-Consul  of  the  Nation, 
Tacna. ' ' 

The  recrudescence  of  the  campaign  against  Chile 
for  the  supposed  expulsion  of  Peruvians  from  Tacna 
and  Arica,  besides  the  political  interest  in  seeking 
means  conducive  to  bringing  about  the  failure  of  the 
Chilean  tentatives  addressed  to  effecting  the  plebiscite, 
may  admit  of  another  origin. 

In  order  to  prevent  the  smuggling  that  was  being 
carried  on  actively  in  the  province  and  to  assure  more 
effectively  the  police  vigilance  of  the  countryside,  it 
was  decreed  to  move  to  those  regions  a  squadron  of 
carbineers. 


724 

Distributed  along  the  frontier,  these  carbineers  have 
succeeded  in  almost  suppressing  contraband. 

It  is  natural  that  the  numerous  enemies  that  this 
measure  has  made,  inasmuch  as  it  did  not  permit 
them  to  continue  in  the  illicit  trade  in  which  they  were 
engaged,  should  have  been  used  as  a  means  of  raising 
a  cry  of  alarm  against  our  country  and  should  have 
become  the  best  means  of  propaganda  of  the  Peru- 
vian Government  in  its  design  of  undermining  the 
prestige  of  Chile  and  of  maintaining  and  exacerbat- 
ing hatred  of  her. 

Addressed  to  this  same  purpose  is  the  denounce- 
ment formulated  in  one  of  the  dailies  of  Lima,  in 
the  month  of  February,  to  the  effect  that  the  admini- 
strative authorities  of  Tacna  had  decreed  the  suspen- 
sion of  licenses  to  Peruvian  merchants  and  industrials. 

This  assertion  is  absolutely  incorrect.  The  list  of 
industrial  and  professional  licenses  of  Tacna  shows 
that  many  Peruvian  citizens  possessed  them,  and  no 
one  has  ever  been  denied  his  legitimate  inscription 
in  it. 

The  following  table  indicates  the  nationality  of  the 
owners  of  industrial  and  commercial  licenses  in  the 
rural  and  urban  part  of  the  department  of  Tacna  and 
Arica  and  it  shows  the  great  number  of  Peruvians 
that  possess  them: 

Other 
Total  Peruvians  nationalities 

Tacna 330  146  184 

Arica 412  67  345 


742  213  529 


Peru   has   emphasized   the   marked   decline   in   the 
Peruvian  population  in   the   saltpeter   regions.     Al- 


725 

though  it  is  true  that  these  allegations  can  have  no 
influence  whatsoever  on  the  solution  of  the  problem 
of  Tacna  and  Arica,  since  the  nitrate  region  is  not 
subject  to  the  plebiscite  provided  for  in  Article  III 
of  the  Treaty  of  Ancon,  nevertheless,  and  for  the 
purpose  of  demonstrating  the  partial  manner  in  which 
the  propaganda  of  Peru  is  made  in  this  matter,  I 
again  have  recourse  to  the  report  presented  to  the 
Intendant  of  the  Province  of  Tarapaca  by  the  com- 
mittee on  the  feeding  and  lodging  of  the  unemployed 
laborers,  on  the  occasion  of  the  saltpeter  crisis  of 
1914,  to  demonstrate  that  the  depopulation  of  that 
region  of  Peruvians  has  been  brought  about,  natu- 
rally, without  violence — the  same  as  the  depopula- 
tion of  Chileans — by  the  suspension  of  the  saltpeter 
enterprises,  which  threw  out  of  work  some  69,000 
persons,  according  to  the  same  report. 

Placing  it  on  record,  in  passing,  that  the  Govern- 
ment of  Chile,  during  a  rather  long  period  of  time, 
took  on  itself  the  feeding  of  the  unemployed  workers 
and  that  afterward  it  bore  the  expense  of  the  em- 
barkation of  those  same  laborers  for  the  points  that 
they  indicated,  I  can  reproduce  the  table  contained  in 
that  report,  in  which  appear,  with  a  distinction  of 
nationality,  the  number  of  workmen  embarked  and  the 
transports  used,  for  that  purpose: 

Persons  Embarked  by  the  Intendancy  of  Iquique. 

Chileans : 
In  the  naval  transports  Casma  and  Rancagua  2,388 
With  passages   contracted  for   with  steamship 

companies 6,064 


Total  number  of  Chileans 8,452 


726 

Peruvians : 

In  the  Peruvian  transport  I  quit  08 2,653 

With  passages   contracted  for   with   steamship 

companies 5,580 

Total  number  of  Peruvians 8,233 

Bolivians : 
With  passages  contracted  for  with  steamship 
companies 5,361 

Total  number  of  Bolivians 5,361 

Total  number  in  Government  transports 5,041 

Total  number  with  paid  passages  in  steamship 
companies 17,005 

Total   number   embarked   by   the   Intendancy 
of  Iquique 22,046 

Persons  Embarked  by  the  Authorities  of  Pisagua. 

Bolivians :    630 

Peruvians : 46 


Grand    total 22,722 

After  the  resumption  of  the  saltpeter  industry,  but 
not  with  the  intensity  that  had  formerly  characterized 
it  in  the  same  region,  the  Government  of  Chile  and 
the  companies  themselves  were  inclined  to  give  pre- 
ference to  the  national  workers  over  the  foreign 
workers,  and  thus  it  is  explained  why  there  did  not 
exist  in  the  population  engaged  in  extracting  salt- 
peter a  number  of  Peruvians  as  great  as  that  which 
had  existed  before' that  crisis. 

Besides,  this  depopulation  of  Peruvians  not  only 
affects  the  nitrate  region,  but  also  all  the  provinces 
of  Chile  in  which  persons  of  that  nationality  live. 


727 

The  Director-General  of  Statistics,  don  Alberto  Ed- 
wards, in  an  interview  published  in  a  Santiago  news- 
paper, referring  to  the  supposed  expulsion  of  the 
Peruvians  from  the  cities  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  said : 

"Nothing  could  be  more  unfounded  than  these 
supposed  expulsions,  as  it  will  be  easy  for  me  to 
prove.  Here  you  can  see,"  he  said  to  us,  showing 
us  the  book  of  the  census  of  1907,  "that  of  the 
37,140  Peruvians  listed  at  the  time,  not  one  of 
them  appeared  to  be  residing  in  Tacna,  for  the 
simple  reason  that  the  census  committee  held 
that,  inasmuch  as  the  nationality  of  these  persons 
had  not  been  definitively  decided,  both  Peruvians 
and  Chileans  resident  there  ought  to  be  con- 
sidered as  nationals. 

"So  that,  since  the  Peruvians  of  the  province 
of  Tacna  did  not  figure  in  the  census,  the  decline 
to  which  reference  has  been  made  can  hardly  be 
due  to  a  movement  of  population  that  has  occur- 
red there. 

"On  the  other  hand,  this  decrease  in  the  num- 
ber of  Peruvians,  is  to  be  explained  by  the  state 
of  strained  relations  between  the  two  countries, 
which  is  not  designed  to  foster  the  emigration  of 
Peruvians  to  Chile  or  of  Chileans  to  Peru;  for 
only  continuous  immigration  could  have  filled  the 
gaps  caused  by  death  among  the  old  residents, 
whose  children,  born  in  Chile,  are  Chileans. 

"However,  there  is  a  more  important  cause  that 
explains  by  itself,  the  decrease  in  the  number  of 
Peruvians  resident  in  Chile,  and  it  is  the  crisis 
in  nitrate.  It  has  expelled,  without  artificial 
means  from  Tarapaca  and  Antofagasta,  not  only 
Peruvians,  but  also  Chileans. 

'  ?  The  number  of  unemployed  lodged  by  the  Gov- 
ernment, and  residing  in  Santiago,  is  greater  than 
the  total  diminution  of  Peruvians  in  those  prov- 
inces. 

"It  is  natural,  therefore,  that,  since  there  was  no 
work  there  for  Chileans,  there  would  be  none  there 


728 


for  Peruvians  either.  The  same  thing  took  place 
in  the  saltpeter  crisis  of  1895,  although  it  did  not 
occur  to  any  one  to  speak  then  of  expulsions.  Of 
the  34,901  Peruvians  that  were  there  at  the  time, 
the  number  decreased  to  15,999,  that  is,  to  less  than 
half.  I  am  going  to  supply  you  a  table  in  which 
you  will  be  able  to  see,  by  provinces,  the  number 
of  Peruvians  resident  in  Chile  when  the  censuses 
of  1907  and  1920  were  taken : 


Provinces. 

1907 

1920 

Tacna 

...... 

7,157 

Tarapaca 

33,574 

4,010 

Antofagasta 

1,749 

273 

Atacama 

46 

15 

Coquimbo 

91 

27 

Aconcagua 

20 

14 

Valaparaiso 

813 

146 

Santiago 

594 

288 

0  'Higgins 

22 

7 

Colchagua 

10 

5 

Curico 

13 

3 

Talca 

10 

5 

Linares 

6 

1 

Maule 

3 

3 

Nuble 

10 

4 

Concepcion 

100 

38 

Arauco 

3 

1 

Biobio 

17 

4 

Malleco 

11 

10 

Cautin 

7 

10 

Valdivia 

14 

12 

Llanquihue 

1 

9 

Chiloe 

1 

1 

Magallanes 

25 

13 

37,140      12,056 


These  data  and  many  others  possessed  by  the  Govern- 
ment make  it  possible  to  establish  in  the  most  reliable 


729 

manner  the  incorrectness,  the  most  absolute  incorrect- 
ness, of  the  assertion  that  is  made  to  the  effect  that  in 
Chile  the  Peruvian  element  is  persecuted,  and  that  its 
departure  from  the  country  has  been  violently  pro- 
voked.   Precisely  the  contrary  is  true. 

In  order  not  to  formulate  personal  assertions,  which 
may  be  lacking  in  authority,  I  desire  to  appeal  to  the 
testimony  of  a  distinguished  public  man  of  Chile  who, 
during  my  recent  trip  through  the  provinces  of  the 
north,  had  the  courtesy  to  pronounce  a  brilliant  dis- 
course, from  which  I  desire  to  reproduce  certain  para- 
graphs that  refer  to  these  topics,  and  which  demon- 
strates by  means  of  indisputable  historical  events  that 
the  generosity  of  the  Government  of  Chile  toward  Peru- 
vian persons  and  properties  is  a  traditional  fact  in  the 
policy  of  the  country. 

The  Congressman  from  Tarapaca,  Don  Horacio 
Mujica,  said  on  that  occasion: 

"As  to  Tarapaca,  it  is  proper  to  recall  that  at 
the  moment  of  the  occupation  of  its  territory  by 
Chilean  troops  it  was  in  the  full  process  of  what 
was  called  'the  operation  of  purchase'  of  the  salt- 
peter property  by  the  Government  of  Peru,  which 
was,  in  truth,  one  of  expropriation  in  exchange  for 
the  so-called  nitrate  certificates  or  credit  claims 
against  a  Government  semi-insolvent  before  the 
war,  and  altogether  insolvent  after  its  defeats. 

The  Government  of  Chile,  after  the  occupation 
of  the  territory,  returned  the  properties  belonging 
to  Peruvians,  its  enemy  proprietors,  in  the  great 
majority  of  cases,  to  free  industry,  receiving  as 
valid  and  at  par  those  depreciated  nitrate  cer- 
tificates. The  Peruvians  thus  recovered  their 
property  of  which  the  Government  had  taken  pos- 
session in  exchange  for  those  credit  claims.  Their 
properties  being  thus  returned  to  those  that  de- 
sired to   recover  them,   without   any  distinction 


730 


whatsoever  between  Chileans,  neutrals  and  ene- 
mies, the  saltpeter  industry  developed  on  the  basis 
of  laws  that  have  never  made  any  distinction  on 
account  of  the  nationality  of  owners,  and  without 
even  so  much  as  granting  to  the  national  capital 
the  exceptional  favors  that  are  considered  legiti- 
mate everywhere. 

In  short,  the  Government  and  sovereignty  of 
Chile,  without  even  waiting  for  the  conclusion  of 
the  war,  proceeded  to  return  to  the  enemies  of  that 
time,  under  conditions  of  extraordinary  gene- 
rosity, their  saltpeter  properties.  Chile  returned 
the  properties  to  all  those  that  desired  to  redeem 
them  in  exchange  for  claims  against  the  insolvent 
enemy  Government,  and  she  continued  the  same 
policy  after  the  peace;  and  she  has  considered 
hitherto  on  a  footing  of  the  most  absolute  equality 
the  proprietors  of  every  nationality,  including 
Peruvians,  who,  thanks  to  it,  recovered,  preserved 
and  increased  their  fortunes. 

As  to  the  territories  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  which 
had  their  period  of  prosperity  while  they  were  the 
obligatory  highway  for  the  transit  of  the  commerce 
of  Bolivia  until  the  construction  of  the  railways 
from  Antofagasta  and  Mollendo  to  that  Republic, 
the  Government  of  Chile  has  confined  itself  to  in- 
vesting large  capital  in  returning  to  them  that  lost 
prosperity,  without  ever  having  issued  any  law, 
regulation  or  decree  that  might  tend  to  place  the 
Peruvians  or  Peruvian  property  under  an  excep- 
tional or  unfavorable  regime  in  comparison  with 
Chilean  persons  or  properties,  as  is  proven  by  the 
index  of  properties  that  remain  in  the  possession 
of  their  former  Peruvian  owners. 

Chile  has  not  sought  to  acquire  preponderance 
by  belittling  the  property  of  her  enemies  in  order 
to  compel  its  abandonment  or  to  acquire  it  at  a  low 
price ;  she  has  sought  her  predominance  solely  by 
stimulating  the  progress  and  prosperity  of  the  ter- 
ritory of  Tacna  and  Arica,  always  considering  it 
not  as  territory  for  Chileanization,  but  as  Chilean 


731 

territory  in  which  its  inhabitants  and  properties 
were  subject  to  the  same  system  of  freedom  and 
guaranties  as  the  rest  of  the  territory. 

The  occurrences  to  which  I  have  alluded  took 
place  in  the  presence  of  many  of  the  distinguished 
foreigners  that  are  listening  to  me,  who  will  cer- 
tainly confirm  to  the  Minister  the  profound  truth 
of  my  affirmations.  Special  mention  ought  to  be 
made  of  Sr.  Humberstone,  the  distinguished 
British  industrial  and  dean  of  the  saltpeter  ac- 
tivities of  the  province. ' ' 

It  is  very  strange,  besides,  that,  although  these  facts 
are  so  well  known,  Peruvian  propaganda  should  insist 
on  affirming  that  citizens  of  Peru  are  persecuted  in 
Chile.  To  disprove  this  statement  it  would  be  suffi- 
cient, finally,  to  invoke  the  circumstance  that  Tacna 
and  Arica  have  been  the  constant  shelter  of  Peruvian 
political  refugees  and  the  place  in  which,  under  the  pro- 
tection of  Chilean  laws  and  liberty,  safety  has  been 
found  by  such  eminent  men  as  Don  Au gusto  Durand, 
the  head  of  the  liberal  party  of  Peru,  Don  Juan  Carlos 
Bernales,  former  Vice-President  of  the  Republic,  Don 
Juan  Durand,  Peruvian  Senator,  Don  Guillermo  Bil- 
linghurst,  a  former  President  of  Peru,  and  many  others 
whose  names  it  would  be  superfluous  to  mention. 

The  magnanimity  of  the  Government  of  Chile  toward 
the  Peruvian  elements  of  the  north  reached  such  an 
extreme  that  cases  occurred — very  frequent,  indeed — 
in  which  even  in  the  distribution  of  public  offices  and 
in  the  enterprises  of  Chileans  developed  in  Tacna  and 
Arica,  Peruvian  citizens  and  Peruvian  laborers  were 
employed. 

Chile,  proceeding  in  conformity  with  all  established 
precedents  and  with  the  most  elementary  principles  of 
law,  afterwards  organized  her  public  service  in  the 
province  of  Tacna  with  national  elements.     Agricul- 


732 

tural,  electric  lighting,  mining  and  irrigation  enter- 
prises established  there  by  Chilean  capital  have  also 
seen  fit  to  employ  Chilean  workers  only,  and  in  like 
manner  proceed  the  foreigners  who,  grateful  for  the 
country  under  whose  sovereignty  they  live  and  pros- 
per, wish  to  contribute  to  the  nationalization  of  those 
territories. 

In  Tacna  and  in  Arica  live  to-day,  in  spite  of  every- 
thing, with  the  same  guaranties  as  always  and  engage 
in  a  tranquil  manner  in  their  work  many  Peruvian 
citizens  who,  unquestionably,  could  not  enjoy  in  their 
country  the  benefits  of  the  freedom  and  order  that  they 
find  in  these  Chilean  provinces. 

While  this  occurs  in  Chile  in  respect  to  Peruvians, 
what  is  occurring  in  Peru  in  respect  to  Chileans !  No 
Chilean  goes  to  Peru  without  being  treated  as  an 
enemy,  not  even  excepting  certain  political  personages 
of  our  country,  as  occurred  with  a  Senator  of  the  Re- 
public, who,  in  transit  via  the  port  of  Callao,  disem- 
barked there,  and  was  made  the  victim  of  numerous 
outrages  and  much  bother  on  the  part  of  the  police  au- 
thorities. 

We,  accused  of  persecuting  the  Peruvian  population 
resident  in  Chile,  present  these  facts  for  the  considera- 
tion of  the  world,  and  we  demonstrate  that  many  citi- 
zens of  that  nationality  live  tranquilly  under  the  pro- 
tection of  our  liberty;  and  if  we  should  ask  Peru  to 
exhibit  statistics  of  the  Chilean  citizens  that  reside  in 
that  country,  we  should,  without  a  shadow  of  a  doubt, 
surely  have  to  change  our  r6le  of  the  accused  and  be- 
come, by  the  eloquence  of  facts,  the  accusers. 


733 

Description  of  Tacna  and  Arica. 
1.     Geogkaphical,  Description 

The  territory  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  the  boundaries 
of  which  are  fixed  by  Article  III  of  the  Treaty  of  An- 
con,  extends  along  the  Pacific  Coast  from  17°  51'  south 
latitude  to  19°  11'  south  latitude,  and  has  an  area  of 
nine  thousand  square  miles,  more  or  less  (23,306  sq. 
km.*),  of  almost  totally  desert  land. 

Arica,  the  port  of  the  territory,  is  2,151  miles  from 
the  Panama  Canal  and  915  miles  from  Valparaiso. 

The  territory  is  geographically  divided  into  two  dis- 
tinct regions.  The  eastern  region  is  an  elevated  table- 
land, closed  on  the  west  side  by  the  first  ranges  of  the 
Andes  Mountains.  The  western  region  is  made  up  of 
the  several  valleys  that  come  down  from  the  said  moun- 
tains, and  of  the  plains  that  extend  to  the  sea. 

In  the  table-land,  which  has  water  in  abundance, 
there  are  three  well-defined  hydrographic  basins.  In 
the  northern  part  flows  the  River  Mauri  which  rises  in 
Peru,  and  which,  after  running  for  forty  miles  through 
Chilean  territory,  where  it  receives  the  waters  of  the 
Uchusuma  River,  passes  on  into  Bolivia.  In  the  cen- 
ter we  find  the  streams  that  form  the  Lluta  River, 
which  cuts  through  the  mountains  and  flows  into  the 
Pacific  Ocean,  somewhat  to  the  north  of  Arica.  In  the 
southern  part  rises  the  Lauca  River,  which  passes  on 
into  Bolivia  after  flowing  through  Chilean  territory  for 
forty  miles.* 

The  western  part  of  the  territory  is  a  desert,  ex- 
cept for  the  narrow  valleys  through  which  streams 
flow  down  from  the  Andes.  All  the  life  of  the  region  is 
centered  about  these  valleys.  In  the  north  is  found  the 
valley  of  the  River  Sama,  made  up   of  a  series   of 


*  Anuario  Estadistico.Republica  de  Chile,  1921 — Vol.  I.   "Demo- 
grafia,"  page  11. 


734 

streams,  of  which  the  Ticalaco,  the  Tarucache,  and  the 
Estique  flow  through  the  territory  at  present  under 
Chilean  sovereignty.  This  mountainous  region  forms 
part  of  the  district  of  Tarata,  the  principal  village  of 
which  has  the  same  name. 

Farther  south  we  find  the  Caplina  stream  which  dis- 
appears after  passing  the  city  of  Tacna.  In  this  val- 
ley, besides  the  last-named  city,  are  found  also  the 
settlements  of  Pocollai,  Calana,  and  Pachia. 

Continuing  south,  we  come  to  the  Lluta  River  which 
is  the  most  important  river  of  the  province,  and  which, 
as  we  have  said,  rises  in  the  eastern  table-land  and 
flows  into  the  sea  north  of  Arica.  In  this  region  are 
found  the  villages  of  Putre  and  of  Socoroma. 

A  short  distance  to  the  south,  the  River  San  Jose, 
which,  flowing  through  the  valley  of  Azapa,  reaches 
the  sea  at  the  port  of  Arica.  In  the  ravines  that  form 
the  valley  of  this  river  are  found  the  settlements  of 
Belen,  Tignamar,  and  Livilcar. 

Some  twenty  miles  farther  south  is  found  the  River 
Vitor  which  in  its  upper  course  runs  through  the  fer- 
tile valley  of  Codpa. 

Finally,  separating  the  province  of  Tacna  from  that 
of  Tarapaca,  we  find  the  ravine  of  Camarones. 

In  the  said  valleys  of  Sama,  Caplina,  Lluta,  Azapa. 
and  Vitor,  almost  the  entire  population  of  the  province 
is  accumulated.  The  rest  of  the  western  part  consists 
of  sandy  desert. 

2.      MlNEKAL    RESOUECES 

The  mineral  wealth  of  Tacna  is  unimportant. 

All  the  mining  enterprises  that  are  to  be  found  in 
the  province  belong  either  to  Chileans  or  Europeans, 
with  the  exception  of  the  salt  deposit  of  Chacalluta  and 
the  sulphur  beds  of  Aguas  Calientes.* 

xu  *AIn*  \921  th,e  outPut  <rf  Chacalluta  was  2,958  tons  of  salt  and 
that  of  Aguas  Calientes,  3,366  tons  of  sulphur. 


735 

In  the  following  table  is  shown  the  mineral  output 
of  the  province  of  Tacna  in  the  year  1921  :* 

Value  in 

pesos  of 

18d  gold. 

Copper  exported 248  tons  52.375 

Gold    contained    in    the    ex- 
ported copper 744  grams  700 

Silver   contained   in  the   ex- 
ported copper 49.600  grams  2.559 

Sulphur    4,630  tons  393.550 

Salt 2,958  tons  106.488 

The  exploitation  of  sulphur  gained  importance  only 
after  the  construction  by  the  Chilean  Government  of 
the  railway  from  Arica  to  La  Paz,  which  affords  an 
easy  outlet  for  the  product  to  the  port  of  Arica,  thus 
supplanting  the  old  primitive  method  of  transporta- 
tion by  means  of  pack-animals. 

3.     Agricultural  Activities 

Agriculture  is  the  chief  occupation  of  the  popula- 
tion of  Tacna.  The  small  valleys  available  for  this 
pursuit  are  extremely  fertile  and  all  the  products  of 
the  temperate  and  sub-tropical  zones  may  be  grown 
therein. 

Agriculture  in  the  province  has  made  remarkable 
progress  as  a  result  of  Chilean  efforts,  the  results  of 
which  are  conspicuously  shown  in  the  valley  of  Lluta, 
which  is  today  one  of  the  most  important  centers  of 
agricultural  activities  in  the  province. 

During  the  Peruvian  occupation  the  valley  was  but 
a  continuous  swamp-land,  covered  by  brambles  and 


*  Anuario  Estadistico  de  1921.     "Mineria  y  Metalurgia,"  Vol. 
VIII. 


736 

briars,  and  a  dangerous  breeding  place  for  the  germs 
of  intermitent  fever  (paludismo). 

Under  the  Chilean  sovereignty,  through  the  efforts 
of  Chilean  owners,  these  swamp-lands  have  been 
drained,  almost  entirely,  thus  changing  hem  into  fer- 
tile fields  where  is  grown  sufficient  alfalfa  to  supply 
the  needs  of  the  province,  and  partially  the  needs  of 
the  nitrate  region. 

The  Chilean  capital  invested  in  the  Lluta  valley  and 
various  other  parts  of  the  province,  in  order  to  enlarge 
the  cultivated  area  and  increase  the  present  output  of 
agricultural  products  is  worthy  of  consideration. 
These  results  are  obtained  through  the  construction 
of  extensive  irrigation  works,  bringing  the  water  from 
its  source  in  the  Cordillera ;  the  canals  for  this  pur- 
pose, such  as  those  constructed  by  the  "Compania 
Azucarera  de  Tacna"  (Sugar  Company  of  Tacna*) 
are  very  difficult  feats  of  engineering  and  involve  large 
expenditures. 

Only  Chile  can  assure  to  the  province  of  Tacna  its 
ever-increasing  agricultural  prosperity  as  she  is  par- 
ticularly interested  in  maintaining  near  the  nitrate  re- 
gion— with  its  163,403  sq.  km.  of  barren  surface  and 
its  272,883  inhabitants — a  fertile  agricultural  zone 
capable  of  supplying  that  region  with  vegetables, 
fruits,  forage,  etc. 

Peru  would  not  be  so  interested,  as  the  output  of 
Tacna  is  similar  to  that  of  the  neighboring  Peruvian 
departments.  There  would  not  be  the  same  motive 
for  development. 

The  valleys  watered  by  the  small  rivers  of  Azapa  or 
San  Jose,  Lluta  or  Caplina;  and  those  watered  by  the 


*  The  canal  of  the  Coinpania  Azucarera  is  already  fifty  kilo- 
meters in  length  and  a  tunnel  of  1,260  meters  has  been  constructed 
in  order  to  avoid  going  around  the  mountain  chain  separating  the 
valley  of  Tacna  from  that  of  Lluta.  A  continuation  of  this  work, 
to  the  extent  of  100  kilometers  additional,  is  under  construction. 


737 

various  creeks  which  feed  the  Sama  and  Vitor  Rivers, 
in  the  region  of  Tarata,  form  the  agricultural  region  of 
the  province  with  a  total  surface  of  27,535  hectares, 
this  area  distributed  as  follows : 

Trees   291  hectares 

Grain  and  orchards 1,983       '  * 

Made  prairies 3,091 

Natural  prairies 20,139 


a 

Forests  and  thickets 2,131        '  * 


Total  27,535 


Of  the  total  of  27,535  cultivated  hectares,  there  are 
7,256  irrigated  hectares,  distributed  among  the  prov- 
inces thus : 

Tarata    1,350  hectares 

Tacna 2,072  hectares 

Arica 3,834  hectares 

Total 7,256  hectares 

The  agricultural  produce  of  the  province,  in  metric 
quintals,  during  the  year  1921,  has  been  as  follows : 

Corn    10,801  metric  quintals 

Potatoes  4,740  metric  quintals 

Dried  alfalfa  in  bales.  60,003  metric  quintals 

Other  products 190  metric  quintals 

The  products  of  the  orchards  and  vineyards  in  1921 
amounted  to  the  following : 

Olives  and  other  fresh  fruits         3,458  metric  quintals 
Dried  fruits  530  metric  quintals 

Olive  oil  51  litres 

Wines  and  other  grape  products  10,120  litres 


738 

There  may  be  also  mentioned  as  other  important 
products  of  the  province,  milk  to  the  amount  of  27,100 
litres,  and  wool  to  the  amount  of  651  metric  quintals. 

4.     Transpoktation  Facilities 

(a)  Railways 
Arica  to  La  Paz. 

The  most  important  of  the%  works  executed  by  Chile 
in  the  province  of  Tacna  is  the  railroad  from  Arica  to 
La  Paz,  the  construction  of  which  was  started  in  the 
year  1906  and  the  operation  of  which  began  in  the 
year  1913.  This  railroad  restored  to  Tacna  and  Arica 
the  activity,  of  which  they  were  deprived  by  the  Pe- 
ruvian Government  through  the  construction  of  the 
railway  from  Mollendo  to  La  Paz,  thereby  diverting 
commerce  of  Bolivia  to  the  coast,  which  commerce 
formerly  had  passed  through  the  province  of  Tacna 
to  Arica.  This  and  other  measures  caused  the  Depart- 
mental Council  of  Tacna,  in  March  18,  1878,  to  pro- 
test to  the  Minister  of  the  Interior,  Police  and  Public 
Works  of  Peru,  in  which  protest  it  is  asserted  that 
"the  department  of  Tacna  is  in  an  agonizing  situa- 
tion, owing  to  the  notorious  depression  of  its  mercan- 
tile industry,  that  represents  its  only  means  of  exist- 
ence."* 

The  railroad  from  Arica  to  La  Paz,  extending  over 
206  kms.  and  350  mtrs.,  has  31  kms.  and  340  mtrs. 
thereof  rackrailed.  The  company's  declared  capital 
is  52,639,073  pesos  gold,  of  18d.  The  very  grave  diffi- 
culties which  the  Government  of  Chile  had  to  overcome 
at  great  expense,  in  the  construction  of  this  railroad, 
may  be  appreciated  when  considering  the  configura- 
tion of  the  ground,  with  its  high  mountains  attaining 


*  "Tacna  y  Arica  bajo  la  Soberania   Chilena,"   1922.     Carlos 
Varas.     Page  38. 


739 

the  considerable  height  of  4,257  meters,  over  which 
the  railroad  runs. 

Arica  to  Tacna. 

Connecting  the  cities  of  Arica  and  Tacna  there  is  a 
private  railroad  of  60  kms.  and  800  mtrs.,  the  owning 
company  of  which  has  a  declared  capital  of  6,000,000 
pesos  gold,  of  18d.f 

(b)  Highways 

The  physical  character  of  the  region,  made  up,  as 
it  is,  of  small,  inhabited  valleys  separated  by  deserts 
and  high  mountains,  makes  the  construction  of  roads, 
which  have  to  run  over  wide  uninhabited  stretches 
in  order  to  unite  the  scattered  towns,  very  difficult  and 
expensive. 

In  the  desert  pampas  there  was  no  need  to  rebuild 
roads,  it  being  only  necessary  to  repair  those  in  exist- 
ence at  a  few  places  and  to  indicate  the  route  by  signs ; 
but  in  the  mountainous  regions  the  work  has  been  very 
difficult,  and  made  expensive  through  lack  of  water 
and  food  for  the  workmen,  since  everything  had  to  be 
brought  over  long  distances. 

In  Peruvian  times  the  only  road  in  the  province 
was  that  from  Tacna  to  Bolivia,  through  Pachia,  Palca 
and  Tacora.  Elsewhere  there  were  only  trails  marked 
out  by  the  tracks  of  the  mules  and  llamas  that  served 
for  transport  purposes. 

That  road  had  been  the  channel  of  egress  for  Bo- 
livian products  which  came  down  the  Tacna  Valley 
to  be  eventually  embarked  at  Arica.  The  commerce 
in   transit   between   Tacna   and   Arica,   however,   in- 


f  All  the  figures  concerning  the  railways  have  been  taken  from 
the  "Anuario  Estadistico  de  la  Republica  de  Chile."  Vol.  XII. 
1912. 


740 

creased  considerably  when  the  English  railway  that 
joined  the  two  cities  was  constructed  in  1856  since 
it  made  more  easy  the  transportation  of  the  import 
and  export  merchandise  to  and  from  Bolivia. 

The  Peruvian  Government  gave  a  death-blow  to  this 
commerce  when  it  constructed  the  railway  from  Mol- 
lendo  to  Puno  in  1876  and  opened  the  former  port 
and  offered  there  every  facility  to  commerce. 

In  this  crisis  in  the  commercial  life  of  the  province 
when  it  was  being  gradually  stranged  by  the  policy  of 
its  former  ruler,  came  the  war  of  1879. 

As  soon  as  the  Chilean  administration  was  estab- 
lished in  the  province,  it  busied  itself  with  the  repair 
of  the  road  to  Bolivia,  and  one  of  its  first  tasks  was 
its  complete  restoration  in  1885.  Twenty  or  more 
years  later  the  road  was  rebuilt  and  in  the  section  of 
the  Caplina  valley,  where  it  unites  Tacna  with  Pocol- 
lay,  Calana,  Pachia  and  Calientes,  it  has  been  repaired 
throughout  its  entire  length,  bridges  being  made  over 
the  canals  and  open  sewers  that  it  crosses. 

In  the  rest  of  the  province,  where,  as  has  been  said, 
no  work  of  communication  had  been  attempted,  the 
Chilean  administration  has  built  the  following  roads: 
75  kms.  from  Tacna  to  Tarata ;  40  kms.  from  Tacna  to 
Sama ;  18  kms.  from  Arica  to  Rosario ;  4  kms.  of  model 
highway  from  Arica  to  Azapa;  30  kms.  from  Puquios 
to  Putre. 

(c)   Town-Paving  Work 

During  the  Peruvian  administration  only  a  few 
blocks  of  the  city  of  Tacna  were  paved,  a  street  here 
and  there,  and  then  only  with  river  pebbles,  whilst 
in  Arica  no  paving  of  the  roads  existed  at  all,  and 
only  a  few  sidewalks  were  floored  boards. 

Under  Chilean  administration  the  streets  of  the 
cities  of  Tacna  and  Arica  have  been  paved  through- 


741 

out,  and  those  of  Tarata  also,  the  pavements,  properly 
curbed  and  graded,  being  always  constructed  of  con- 
crete or  tiles. 

In  Tacna  no  less  than  two  hundred  thousand  square 
metres  have  been  paved  and  ten  thousand  metres  of 
concrete  sidewalks  have  been  laid,  at  an  expense  of 
over  a  million  pesos. 

In  Arica  there  were  no  public  gardens,  the  present 
Plaza  de  Armas  and  the  park  along  the  sea  front  be- 
ing entirely  Chilean  work. 

In  Tacna  the  Plaza  de  Armas  has  been  improved 
and  paved,  the  Pinto  Park  planted  and  the  Municipal 
Park  constructed.  In  Tacna,  also,  two  bridges  have 
been  constructed  over  the  Caramolle  to  unite  the  north- 
ern and  southern  sections  of  the  town.  Both  cities  now 
have  public  and  private  electric  light  plants. 

5.     Commekce 
(a)  Department  of  Tacna 

The  present  department  of  Tacna  is  composed,  prin- 
cipally, of  the  valley  through  which  flows  the  stream 
of  Caplina,  which  irrigates  an  extent  of  2,072  hectares 
of  land  where  fruit,  vegetables,  sugar-cane,  alfalfa, 
and  cotton  are  grown.  The  Sama  and  Tarata  regions 
are  less  important  from  an  industrial  standpoint. 

The  district  of  Caplina  once  was  very  important. 
This  was  due  to  the  fact  that  Tacna  was  the  center 
of  the  commerce  of  the  greater  part  of  Bolivia,  and 
the  artery  through  which  flowed  the  exports  and  im- 
ports between  the  ocean  and  the  northern  part  of  that 
country.  Tacna  was  the  headquarters  of  the  houses 
that  engaged  in  this  trade,  which  was  increased  greatly 
by  the  building  of  the  railroad  between  Arica  and 
Tacna  in  1856. 


742 

But  this  exceptional  commercial  advantage  disap- 
peared with  the  construction  of  the  railway  which 
placed  Bolivia  in  direct  communication  with  the  sea, 
by  way  of  Mollendo, 

As  a  result,  the  department  of  Tacna  now  depends 
almost  exclusively  on  its  agricultural  products,  which 
it  exports  to  Arica  and  to  the  nitrate  zone  in  Tara- 
paca.  It  does  not  export  into  Peru  because,  as  has 
been  stated,  the  valleys  in  the  southern  part  of  that 
country  are  also  devoted  to  agriculture. 

The  following  table  shows  the  Tacna  products  that 
were  shipped  out  in  1922  through  the  port  of  Arica: 

Wool 500,894  pounds 

Cotton 472,298  pounds 

Cotton  Seeds . .  590,040  pounds 

Hides   139,025  pounds 

Vegetables    . 6,459,127  pounds* 

Of  these  products  the  wool,  the  cotton,  and  the 
hides  have  been  sent  abroad.  The  cotton  seeds  have 
been  used  to  manufacture  cottonseed  oil  in  the  central 
part  of  Chile.  And  the  vegetables  have,  been  sent  to 
Tarapaca  or  Antofagasta. 

These  figures  show  how  closely  the  prosperity  and 
economic  life  of  Tacna  is  bound  to  the  nitrate  zone  of 
Tarapaca  whither  it  sends  almost  its  entire  agricul- 
tural output. 

The  imports,  that  Tacna  requires  are  shown  in 
the  following  table  setting  forth  the  articles  shipped 
into  Tacna  through  the  port  of  Arica  in  1922 : 

*  As  these  figures  are  taken  from  the  books  of  the  English  con- 
cern, the  "Arica-Tacna  Railroad,"  1922,  the  weights  are  given  in 
pounds. 


743 

Lumber    515,187  pounds 

Flour 4,387,847  pounds 

Petroleum  537,979  pounds 

Sugar 968,827  pounds 

Eice  911,282  pounds 

Beer   344,859  pounds 

Wines  and  Liquors .  . .  1,021,647  pounds 

Animals 2,441,406  pounds 

Merchandise 5,578,437  pounds* 

Of  these  articles,  a  great  part  of  the  merchandise 
(shoes,  matches,  candles,  preserves,  clothes,  knitted 
goods,  etc.)  are  of  Chilean  manufacture,  while  the 
lumber,  flour,  sugar,  beer,  wines,  liquors,  and  animals 
are  of  Chilean  origin. 

Of  the  above  articles  that  Tacna  now  obtains  from 
Chile,  Peru  could  furnish  only  sugar  and  cattle.  How- 
ever, Tacna  is  commencing  to  produce  sugar  on  its 
own  soil,  while  the  cattle  raised  in  southern  Peru  are 
very  inferior  to  Chilean  cattle. 

(b)  Port  of  Arica 

In  order  not  to  go  into  more  details  it  seems  best 
to  limit  the  succeeding  statements  to  quotations  from 
the  "Anuario  Estadistico, "  1921,  Vol.  X,  Comercio 
Interior. 

Domestic  Commerce — National  and  Nationalised 
Products 

Entering  Leaving  Total 

(Chilean  currency) 
Products  of  the  extractive 

industries     5,746,632  2,286,429  8,033,061 

Products  of  the  manufac- 
turing industry 32,427,658  3,074,074       35,501,732 

Minting  and  precious 

metals    2,761,200  2,761,200 

38,174,29.0  8,121,703       46,295,993 

*  As  these  figures  are  taken  from  the  books  of  the  English  con- 
cern, the  "Arica-Tacna  Railroad,"  1922,  the  weights  are  given  in 
pounds. 


744 

Foreign  Commerce 

The  value  is  in  pesos  of  18d.  for  the  foreign  mer- 
chandise imported  and  exported  in  1921  through  the 
port  of  Arica.* 

Imports   . ..   $2,442,149 

Exports t  2,254,116 

Total $4,696,265 

Commerce,  in  transit,  through  Arica  in  1921. 

Exported  by  Imported  to 

Bolivia   27,344,333f    11,057,931$ 

Peru  173,800§ 

Resume  of  the  Commerce  of  Arica,  in  $  gold  of  18d. 

Importations  and 
Exportations 

Chilean  $46,295,993 

Foreign   4,696,265 

Peru,  in  transit 173,800 

Bolivia,  in  transit 38,102,264 

The  following  table  shows  the  markets  of  the  agricul- 
tural products  of  the  province: 

Ports                                Fruits  Vegetables  Pumpkins     Forage 

(kilos)  (kilos)  (kilos) 

Iquique 219,815  1,773,384  33,379       370,960 

Pisagua 10,395  25,238  1,259            1,200 

Antofagasta    11,204  68,095  5,292 

Tocopilla 2,645  7,135  625 

Taltal    7,690  9,662  274 

Caleta  Buena 570  1,160 

Punta    de    Lobos...  ..           480  1,480  140 

Total 252,799        1,886,154       40,969       372,160 

*  Anuario  Estadistico,"  1921.  Comercio  Exterior,  Pages  364,  368. 
t  Anuario  Estadistico,  1921.  Comercio  Exterior.  Page  329. 
X  Anuario  Estadistico,  1921.  Comercio  Exterior.  Page  338. 
§  Anuario  Estadistico,  1921.  Comercio  Exterior.  Page  337. 


745 

The  impetus  which  Chile  has  given  to  the  industrial 
life  of  the  territory  of  Tacna  and  Arica  may  be  seen  in 
the  preceding  figures. 

6.     Population 


The  following  table  shows  the  results  reached  in 
e  ( 
1920. 


the  Official  Census  of  Chile,  made  on  December  15, 


(a)  Population  of  the  Province  of  Tacna. 

Male  Female  Total 

Tarata  2,256  2,247  4,503 

Tacna 11,663  7,398  19,061 

Arica 8,838  6,510  15,348 

22,757        16,155        38,912 

(b)  The  following  table  shows  the  above-stated  pop- 
ulation distributed  according  to  their  ability  to  read 
and  write : 

Literates. 

Male         Female  Total 

Tarata   ....      759  429  1,188 

Tacna 8,349  4,405  12,754 

Arica    6,032  3,366  9,398 

Grand 
Male  Female  Total 

15,140  8,200  23,340 


746 

Illiterates. 

Male         Female  Total 

Tarata   ....   1,497  1,818  3,315 

Tacna 3,314  2,993  6,307 

Arica    2,806  3,144  5,950 

Grand 
Male  Female  Total 

7,617  8,955  15,572 

7.     Peesent  Administkation 

(a)  Authorities  and  Administrative  Divisions  of  the 

Territory 

The  administration  of  the  province  of  Tacna,  like 
that  of  the  other  provinces  of  Chile,  is  entrusted  to  an 
Intendant  appointed  by  the  President  of  the  Republic, 
of  whom  he  is  the  personal  representative.  The  In- 
tendant resides  in  the  city  of  Tacna. 

The  administration  of  the  department  of  Arica  is 
in  charge  of  a  Governor,  acting  under  the  orders  of 
the  Intendant  of  the  province  of  Tacna. 

The  municipal  administration,  in  Tacna  as  well  as 
in  Arica,  is  entrusted  to  a  Board  of  Mayors,  appointed 
by  the  President  of  the  Republic,  in  the  same  manner 
as  in  the  other  municipalities  of  the  country  whenever 
circumstances  make  it  inadvisable  to  select  such  offi- 
cials in  a  popular  election. 

The  Government  of  Chile  has  not  considered  it  ex- 
pedient up  to  the  present  time  to  extend  the  electoral 
law  of  the  Republic  over  this  territory,  desiring  to 
avoid  domestic  differences  between  its  inhabitants 
which  might  hinder  the  progress  and  material  develop- 
ment of  that  region,  which  is  the  chief  aim  of  the 
Chilean  administration. 


747 

The  departments  are  divided  into  subdelegations 
and  districts  in  charge  of  a  subdelegate  who  performs 
his  duties  in  Arica  under  the  direction  of  the  Governor 
and  in  Tacna  under  the  direction  of  the  Intendant. 

(b)  Respect  for  All  Rights,  the  Guide  of  the  Chilean 
Administration 

The  Chilean  administration  in  Tacna  and  Arica  has 
been  carried  on  without  making  any  distinction  be- 
tween the  various  nationalities  of  the  inhabitants  of 
the  territory,  giving  to  all  impartially  the  liberty  and 
guarantees  established  by  the  political  Constitution 
of  the  State. 

The  residents  of  Peruvian  nationality  have  always 
possessed  full  freedom  in  the  exercise  of  their  legiti- 
mate activities. 

Tacna  and  Arica  have  been  much  used  as  a  refuge 
for  Peruvian  politicians  when  expelled  from  their  na- 
tive land  by  their  successful  rivals.  Some  of  these  ref- 
ugees have  been  removed  from  Tacna  and  Arica  by  the 
Chilean  authorities,  but  only  upon  the  request  of  the 
Government  of  Peru,  a  well-known  case  being  when 
the  Consul  General  of  Peru  in  Chile,  by  note  of  De- 
cember 23,  1914,  requested  Chile  to  expel  the  distin- 
guished Peruvian  politicians,  Sehores  Guillermo  E. 
Billinghurst  and  Augusto  Durand. 

The  following  statement  made  in  this  respect  by 
the  Consular  Body  in  Tacna  and  Arica,  may  well  be 
a  matter  of  pride  for  Chile. 

"The  Members  of  the  Consular  Corps,  accred- 
ited in  Tacna  and  Arica  hereby  declare  that  the 
Chilean  authorities  in  this  province,  in  the  honest 
and  strict  fulfillment  of  their  duties,  attend  in  a 
very  correct  manner  to  the  public  and  municipal 
services  and  give  the  persons  and  interests  of  the 


748 

different  nationalities  all  the  guaranties  which 
are  due  them  in  conformity  with  Chilean  laws. 

Tacna,  November  25,  1918. 

Frank  Kobin,  Consular  Agent  of  France. 

M.  Casanovas,  Vice-Consul  of  Spain. 

A.  de  Laneri,  Consular  Agent  of  Italy. 

Clarence  Elliot,  Vice-Consul  of  Great  Britain  in 
Tacna. 

W.  Coresen,  Consul  of  Holland. 

D.  Cusicanqui,  Consul  of  Bolivia. 

G.  M.  Machirdy,  Vice-Consul  of  Great  Britain 
in  Arica. 

George  P.  Finlayson,  Consular  Agent  of  the 
United  States  of  America. 

G.  P.  Hughes  Finlayson,  Consul  of  Belgium  in 
Tacna  and  Arica. 

(c)  Principal  Improvements  Carried  Through  By  the 
Chilean  Administration  in  Tacna  and  Arica 

Public  Instruction. 

During  the  Peruvian  domination  there  did  not  exist 
in  the  present  province  of  Tacna  a  single  establish- 
ment of  higher  education.  There  were  primary  mu- 
nicipal schools  in  the  cities  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  badly 
attended  and  worse  equipped.  There  were  no  schools 
whatever  in  the  towns  of  the  interior. 

Higher  Education 

Today  the  departments  of  Tacna  and  Arica  have 
the  following  establishments  of  instruction,  higher  or 
special,  maintained  at  public  expense;  in  Tacna,  two 
Liceos  (similar  to  German  gymnasium),  one  for  boys 
and  one  for  girls ;  in  Arica,  a  commercial  institute  and 
a  Liceo  for  girls. 


749 

Primary  Education 

Public  Schools. — During  the  Peruvian  administra- 
tion there  only  existed,  as  already  noted,  municipal 
primary  schools  of  an  inferior  order.  There  were 
three  only  in  Tacna  and  two  in  Arica. 

In  the  rural  districts  there  were  none,  until  some 
were  established  by  the  Chilean  Government  in  1886. 
Since  that  time  more  and  more  public  schools  have 
been  opened  until  there  are  today  in  the  province  37 
institutions  of  learning  distributed  as  follows: 

Department  of  Tacna 

Upper  Schools  for  Men 3 

Women 2 

Elementary  Schools,  Men 5 

Women 6 

Both  Sexes 7 

Total 23 

Department  of  Arica 

Upper  Schools  for  Men 1 

Women 1 

Elementary  Schools  for  Men 2 

Both   Sexes  10 

Total 14 

Grand  Total 37 

The  thirty-seven  public  schools  are  distributed 
throughout  the  cities,  villages  and  hamlets  of  the  prov- 
ince in  the  following  manner : 

Tacna,  9;  Pocollay,  2;  Calana,  1;  Pachia,  1;  Miculla, 


750 

1;    Tarata,    3;    Tarucache,    2;    Estique    (pueblo),    1 
Estique  (pampa),  1;  Tala,  1;  Chucatemi,  1;  Arica,  5 
Azapa,  1 ;  Alto  Ramirez,  1 ;  Las  Maitas,  1 ;  Molinos,  1 
Poconchile,  1 ;  Putre,  1 ;  Socoroma,  1 ;  Belen,  1 ;  Codpa, 
1,  giving  a  total  of  37  primary  public  schools. 

Private  Establishments. — The  following  private 
schools  exist  in  the  province: 

In  Tacna,  a  kindergarten  and  a  mixed  night  school 
for  both  sexes,  established  and  maintained  by  the  So- 
ciety "Veintiseis  de  Mayo,"  with  an  average  attend- 
ance of  80  pupils. 

In  Arica,  an  elementary  school,  with  fifty  pupils, 
and  the  following  night  schools  for  working  men: 
" Diego  Barros  Arana,"  "  Jose  Victoriano  Lastarria," 
the  "Working  Men's  Federation  School,' '  giving  ele- 
mentary instruction,  and  the  Industrial  School ' '  James 
Watt"  giving  practical  instruction  in  mechanics,  engi- 
neering, drawing  and  mathematics.  These  latter 
schools  have  an  average  attendance  of  170  pupils. 

All  schools  for  the  working  classes  are  subsidized 
by  the  municipalities. 

2.     Santtaey  Woeks  and  Health  Seevices 

Town  Cleansing  Plans 

The  public  works  of  this  class  will  be  treated  sep- 
arately for  Tacna  and  Arica.  Outside  the  sanitation 
work  already  completed  or  in  process  of  completion 
in  the  cities  of  Tacna  and  Arica,  the  local  authorities 
have,  since  the  beginning  of  the  Chilean  occupation, 
given  special  attention  to  the  town-cleansing  services. 
In  Peruvian  times  the  garbage  was  allowed  to  accumu- 
late inside  the  houses  or  on  the  roofs,  and  no  effort 


Vh* 


751 

was  made  by  the  public  authorities  to  remove  it.  To- 
day, as  a  result  of  the  severe  measures  taken  by  the 
Chilean  authorities,  the  cities  of  the  province  are  no- 
table for  their  cleanliness,  and  it  is  a  significant  fact 
that,  since  the  occupation,  yellow  fever  has  disap- 
peared from  the  region. 

TACNA 

The  works  of  sanitation  and  health  control  carried 
out  in  this  city  by  the  Chilean  administration,  and 
the  new  services  installed  are  the  following:  a  pure 
water  supply,  drainage,  canalization  of  the  Caplina, 
improvement  of  the  public  market,  slaughterhouse,  hos- 
pital, cemetery,  public  disinfection,  agricultural  inspec- 
tion and  advice,  public  baths  and  workmen's  dwellings. 

Watek  Supply 

This  service  did  not  exist  during  the  Peruvian  ad- 
ministration. There  was  nothing  beyond  an  unen- 
closed tank,  into  which  ran  on  certain  days  of  the  week 
water  from  the  Caplina  Eiver,  to  serve,  through  a 
pipeline  laid  through  the  Calle  San  Martin,  the  foun- 
tain in  the  Plaza,  now  known  as  the  Plaza  Colon.  Dur- 
ing the  rainy  season  in  the  Cordillera,  when  the  river 
brought  down  much  mud,  this  service  was  discontinued. 

The  people  of  the  town  supplied  themselves  with 
water  from  the  Caplina,  which  was  like  an  open  sewer 
along  the  Alameda,  the  water  only  running  in  this 
channel  on  Thursdays  and  Saturdays,  since  on  the 
other  days  the  water  was  used  up  in  the  irrigation  of 
other  parts  of  the  valley.  The  days  on  which  the  wa- 
ter ran  permitted  the  inhabitants  to  fill  barrels  for 
the  supply  of  the  other  days  of  the  week,  and  often 


752 

this  stored  water  became  foul  and  unwholesome ;  some 
persons  on  "dry  days"  bought  water  from  the  itiner- 
ant vendors  who  drew  water  from  the  river  and  carried 
it  about  in  earthen  pots  on  the  backs  of  donkeys.  It 
should  be  stated  also  that  the  same  river  which  served 
as  a  source  of  the  city's  drinking  water,  carried  off 
the  drainage  and  house  refuse. 

From  the  beginning  of  the  Chilean  occupation  the 
authorities  set  themselves  to  remedy  this  state  of  af- 
fairs, which  was  such  a  menace  to  the  public  health. 

The  Peruvian  tank  was  demolished  and  recon- 
structed as  a  reservoir  in  accordance  with  scientific 
principles,  and  six  other  reservoirs  were  built,  so  that 
there  are  now  seven,  two  for  settling  and  decantation 
and  five  for  storage — all  constructed  of  cemented  ma- 
sonry. 

These  reservoirs  have  a  capacity  of  900  cubic  metres, 
the  daily  consumption  of  the  town  being  about  300 
cubic  metres  of  water.  They  are  situated  in  a  walled- 
in  enclosure.  Filters  have  been  installed.  None  ex- 
isted before,  since,  as  has  been  said,  in  Peruvian  times, 
no  attempt  was  made  to  purify  the  water,  and  make 
it  fit  for  drinking  and  other  purposes. 

As  regards  the  distribution  of  water,  formerly  there 
was  only  the  main  pipeline  in  the  principal  street,  for 
the  service  of  the  fountain,  whence  the  water  ran  to  the 
public  baths.  During  the  Chilean  administration  lat- 
eral pipes  from  the  main  line  have  been  put  in  and 
other  main  lines  have  been  laid  down  with  similar 
branches  so  that  there  is  now  a  complete  network  of 
pipes  throughout  the  city.  Last  year,  besides  the  free 
public  service  there  were  in  operation  over  a  thousand 
house-services.  There  were  also  ten  hydrants  for  fires 
and  twenty  public  water  troughs. 


753 

The  value  of  the  Tacna  water  works  may  be  cal- 
culated as  follows: 

Tanks $1,250,000 

Main-line  piping 350,000 


$1,600,000 

Drainage 

All  the  rubbish  and  waste  water  of  the  town  during 
Peruvian  times  were  thrown  into  the  bed  of  the  river 
or  into  the  open  sewers  that  ran  along  the  pavements 
in  some  of  the  streets.  In  some  of  the  houses  there 
were  cess-pools. 

A  great  deal  has  been  done  to  improve  this  service, 
though  there  are  still  many  important  works  in  con- 
templation which  are  still  uncompleted. 

The  sewers  (called  in  Spanish  "acequias")  have 
been  covered,  and  now  there  are  no  open  ones  left. 
A  complete  plan  for  the  drainage  service  of  the  city 
has  been  drawn  up  and  is  being  carried  out  as  rapidly 
as  possible  by  the  municipal  authority. 

Closing  in  of  the  Caplina 

This  stream,  which  only  brings  water  to  the  town 
on  certain  days  of  the  week,  ran  open  to  the  sun  along 
the  Alameda ;  the  townspeople,  though  it  was  foul  and 
polluted  by  sewage  and  refuse  drew  from  it  the  water 
which  they  drank  and  used. 

Slaughter  House 

The  present  slaughter  house  of  Tacna  is  of  Chilean 
construction.  Before  the  Chilean  occupation  there  was 
only  a  filthy  compound  provided  for  this  purpose.    The 


754 

equipment  is  hygienic,  as  it  has  an  abundant  water 
supply  and  is  paved  with  concrete. 

The  animals  are  inspected  by  a  municipal  veteri- 
narian when  received  and  when  prepared  for  market. 

Impkovement  of  the  Market 

During  the  Peruvian  administration,  in  the  years 
1873  and  1874,  the  market  building,  occupying  a  block, 
was  constructed,  costing  the  municipality  90,000  soles, 
a  sum  obtained  as  a  loan  from  the  the  Bank  of  Tacna, 
the  liquidation  of  which  has  been  completed  by  the 
Chilean  administration. 

The  interior  of  the  edifice  has  been  completely  trans- 
formed, renovated  along  modern  lines.  It  is  no  longer 
merely  an  immense  shed,  paved  with  river  pebbles,  but 
an  up-to-date  market  place. 

The  San  Ramon  Hospital 

In  Peruvian  times  this  establishment  consisted  of  a 
few  miserable  sheds  grouped  around  the  San  Eamon 
Church. 

The  hospital  has  been  entirely  rebuilt  under  the 
Chilean  administration,  with  several  new  wards,  an 
operating  room,  a  section  for  paying  patients  and  nu- 
merous offices,  whilst  around  it  have  been  laid  out 
large  plantations  of  trees  and  gardens. 

The  San  Ramon  Hospital  has  at  the  present  time 
five  wards  for  men  and  Rye  for  women.  It  has  a  board- 
ing section  for  the  sick  of  both  sexes,  a  maternity  de- 
partment, and  clinical  theatre,  a  pharmacy  and  a  free 
dispensary.  It  has  all  the  surgical  material  necessary 
and  an  X-ray  installation.  There  are  also,  of  course, 
dwelling  rooms  for  the  sisters,  a  chapel,  wash-house, 
rooms  for  the  staff  and  all  necessary  offices. 


1  755 

The  hospital  staff  consists  of  two  doctors,  a  matron, 
two  assistants,  eighteen  nurses  and  attendants  of  both 
sexes.  The  service  of  the  hospital  is  under  the  care 
of  nine  sisters.  The  hospital,  which  has  160  beds,  re- 
ceived, during  1922,  1,445  patients.  The  average  at- 
tendance per  day  was  32.72  cases. 

Disinfection 

There  is  a  perfectly  installed  public  disinfection 
station  where  all  objects  brought  for  the  purpose  are 
disinfected  free  of  charge;  the  compulsory  disinfec- 
tion ordered  by  law  is  carried  out  by  it,  the  public 
coaches  are  disinfected  every  week,  as  are  also  the 
clothing  of  the  army  and  the  clothing  brought  in  by 
the  conscripts. 

Agricultural  and  Inspection  Advice 

This  service  lends  its  aid  free  of  cost  to  the  farmers 
of  the  agricultural  zone,  under  the  charge  of  an  ex- 
pert employed  by  the  Government  who  carries  out 
disinfection  and  the  curative  treatment  of  eucalyptus 
and  other  trees. 

For  this  purpose  the  service  is  provided  with  the 
sprays  and  other  necessary  equipment  which  is  lent 
to  farmers  who  are  only  charged  with  the  cost  of  the 
ingredients  necessary  for  the  treatment. 

The  expert  visits  all  parts  of  the  province  and  gives 
instruction  and  advice  free  of  charge. 

Public  Baths 

There  is  a  public  bath  that  dates  from  Peruvian 
times  and  which  has  been  completely  transformed  and 
improved  by  the  Chilean  administration.    At  present 


756 

there  are  also  three  big  swimming  tanks  and  smaller 
individual  baths  with  hot  and  cold  water.  These  are 
free  public  baths,  and  there  are  others  for  admission 
to  which  a  small  sum  is  charged.  The  water  of  the 
swimming  baths  is  constantly  renewed. 

Workmen's  Dwellings 

The  Chilean  Government  has  begun  the  construction 
of  houses  for  workmen.  These  houses  are  well  de- 
signed, healthy,  properly  ventilated,  roomy  and  with 
boarded  floors,  a  bath  service,  water  closet,  water  sup- 
ply, drains  and  electric  light. 

ARICA 

Improvements  to  the  Port 

In  this  port  and  its  neighborhood  the  works  con- 
nected with  the  improvement  of  the  sanitary  condition 
have  been  most  important,  since  the  waters  of  the  San 
Jose  or  Azapa  and  Lluta,  augmented  by  subterranean 
streams  formed  many  swamps  that  rendered  the  re- 
gion decidedly  unhealthy.  The  works  already  car- 
ried out  and  those  in  construction — all  under  the 
Chilean  administration — have  practically  exterpated 
malaria  which  was  formerly  endemic. 

The  works  of  sanitation  and  public  health  of  the  city 
of  Arica  and  its  neighborhood  carried  out  by  the 
Chilean  administration,  some  of  which  necessitated 
heavy  expenditures,  are  as  follows : 

Drainage,  water  supply,  sanitary  station,  market, 
slaughter  house,  hospital,  lazarette,  cemetery  and 
workmen's  dwellings. 


757 

Drainage 

During  Peruvian  times  there  was  no  drainage  serv- 
ice in  the  town  of  Arica,  the  houses  being  dependent 
on  cesspools,  which  were  utterly  deficient  from  the 
sanitary  point  of  view. 

The  Chilean  authorities  gave  special  attention  to 
finding  a  remedy  for  these  conditions,  which  were 
a  constant  menace  to  the  health  of  the  people.  The 
Government  caused  to  be  constructed  a  complete  sew- 
age system  for  the  whole  town,  with  the  necessary 
drains  and  flushing  arrangements*. 

The  pipes  used  for  sewage  and  surface  water  are 
of  reinforced  concrete.  The  main  outlet  for  the"  waste 
water  is  through  a  collector  emptying  into  the  sea 
at  a  considerable  distance  away  from  the  town,  far 
enough  to  avoid  all  danger  of  contamination;  and  an 
automatic  siphon  system  is  used  for  the  flushing  of  the 
pipes.  There  are  88  inspection  chambers  and  37  for 
flushing. 

Water  Supply 

Under  the  Peruvian  administration  the  population 
depended  entirely  on  well  water,  which  was  often  in- 
fected by  the  cesspools  and  swarmed  with  the  mos- 
quitoes carrying  the  germs  of  malaria. 

The  Chilean  Government  has  carried  out  an  impor- 
tant undertaking  in  bringing  to  the  city,  by  means  of 
a  pipe  line  150  kilometers  long,  the  water  of  the  Car- 
acarani  ravine  in  the  mountain  region  of  Tacora,  which 
is  of  the  highest  purity.  On  the  slopes  of  the  hill  have 
been  constructed  reservoirs  of  reinforced  concrete  to 
hold  the  water  for  the  town  service.  They  are  located 
fifty  meters  above  sea  level  and  have  a  capacity  of 
1,000  cubic  metres. 

To  increase  the  volume  of  water,  pumps  have  also 


758 

been  installed  on  the  left  bank  of  the  San  Jose  stream, 
thus  rendering  available  an  inexhaustible  supply  of 
water  which  is  free  from  all  contamination.  The  in- 
stallation of  water  supply  is  calculated  for  the  needs 
of  a  population  of  16,000  people,  or  double  the  present 
demand. 

A  complete  system  of  supply  pipes  has  been  laid 
down  throughout  the  city,  and  for  the  fire  service,  in 
different  parts  of  the  town. 

The  drainage  and  water  supply  works  have  cost 
the  Treasury,  exclusive  of  municipal  expenditure,  more 
than  one  million  three  hundred  thousand  pesos. 

Suburban  Sanitation 

A  contract  has  been  entered  into  for  the  carrying 
out  of  sanitation  work  in  three  districts,  Las  Chimbas, 
Chinchorro  and  the  San  Jose  stream. 

At  Las  Chimbas,  which  contains  many  suburban 
market  gardens  there  were  formerly  swamps  which 
constituted  a  permanent  peril  to  the  public  health  on 
account  of  their  forming  a  breeding  ground  for  malaria 
mosquitoes.  These  lands  have  been  rendered  com- 
pletely sanitary  by  the  construction  of  subterranean 
drains  which  carry  off  the  water  to  the  sea.  The 
swamps  have  disappeared,  the  low  lying  places  filled 
in  and  all  danger  of  malaria  has  been  dissipated. 

Chinchorro  is  the  name  given  to  the  region  that  ex- 
tends from  the  right  bank  of  the  San  Jose  to  the 
boundary  of  the  land  occupied  by  the  railway  repair 
shops  of  the  La  Paz  Railway.  The  whole  extent  be- 
tween the  railway  and  the  sea  is  under  cultivation, 
principally  devoted  to  sugar  cane,  and  there  are  many 
swamps  there  which  make  it  unhealthy.  Sanitation 
work  is  under  way,  the  swamps  are  being  drained  and 


759 

malaria  is  already  disappearing  and.  will  vanish  en- 
tirely when  the  work  is  finished. 

In  the  ravine  of  the  San  Jose  stream,  which  rnns 
into  the  sea  at  the  time  of  the  winter  rains  in  the  Cor- 
dillera, carrying  off  the  waters  of  the  Azapa  ravine, 
there  abound,  for  some  700  meters,  underground 
springs  derived  from  waters  held  up  in  the  stream 
bed,  forming  impassable  and  dangerous  swamps.  The 
San  Jose  River  which  at  certain  seasons  is  swampy 
and  unhealthy  is  being  canalized.  This  work,  when 
finished,  will  give  complete  drainage  to  the  swamps 
of  the  region.  The  cost  of  canalization  will  amount 
to  more  than  a  million  pesos. 

Sanitaky  Station 

By  a  decree  bearing  date  of  April  17,  1905,  the 
Northern  Sanitary  Station  was  created  and  placed 
under  the  control  of  the  specialist  Dr.  Conrado  Rios. 
Some  days  before  the  decree  was  issued  a  hulk  had 
been  sent  to  Arica,  which  was  destined  to  serve  as  a 
floating  Lazarette,  and  a  Clayton  disinfectant  appa- 
ratus was  installed  for  the  disinfection  of  ships. 

Since  1905  to  the  present  year  the  Northern  Sani- 
tary Station  has  disinfected  3,170  ships  and  has  car- 
ried out  the  regulation  medical  inspection  of  387,034 
sailors  and  138,404  passengers. 

Since  1907  the  Sanitary  Station  has  owned  two 
properties,  the  building  containing  its  offices  and  the 
Lazarette,  situated  to  the  northeast  of  the  city.  The 
first  of  these  cost  the  Government  $150,000. 

The  Northern  Sanitary  Station  has  a  microscopical 
laboratory  with  a  chemical  laboratory  annexed ;  porta- 
ble apparatus  for  disinfection,  a  library,  cages  for 
experimental  animals,  baths,  etc.  For  the  maritime 
service  it  possesses  a  Clayton  disinfection  launch,  a 


760 

gasoline  launch  for  the  medical  inspection  service,  and 
a  hulk  which  serves  as  a  floating  hospital.  The  equip- 
ment of  the  Sanitary  Station  is  valued  at  over  $200,000. 

The  Sanitary  Station  has  played  a  very  important 
role  in  the  work  of  sanitation  conducted  by  the  local 
authorities,  contributing  efficaciously  to  the  object  in 
view  by  its  authoritative  advice  and  its  scientific  tests 
and  experiments. 

The  Sanitary  Station  is  in  charge  of  a  medical  bac- 
teriologist and  has  a  staff  of  disinfecting  operators 
and  sailors  adequate  for  all  branches  of  its  service. 

Market  and  Slaughterhouse 

The  market  was  taken  over  from  the  Peruvian  ad- 
ministration in  the  form  of  a  ruinous  building  without 
pavement  or  conveniences.  The  Chilean  authorities 
have  rebuilt  its  walls,  have  paved  the  floor,  installed 
marble  tables  for  the  sale  of  foodstuffs,  and  established 
a  department  isolated  with  wire-netting  for  the  meat 
offered  for  sale.  Adequate  provisions  have  been  made 
for  cleanliness  and  sanitation.  It  may  be  said  that  the 
place  has  been  entirely  reconstructed,  since  over  $50,- 
000  has  been  expended  on  it. 

The  slaughterhouse  is  exclusively  the  work  of  the 
Chilean  administration.  It  has  a  cement  pavement 
and  an  abundant  water  supply.  Its  construction  cost 
approximately  $40,000. 

The  San  Juan  De  Dios  Hospital 

The  Chilean  administration  on  taking  control  found 
in  Arica  a  hospital  consisting  of  three  adobe  rooms, 
and  furnished  with  twenty  beds  for  men  and  eighteen 
for  women,  the  third  room  being  used  by  the  admin- 
istrative staff  of  the  establishment. 


761 

These  quarters  were  demolished  in  consequence  of 
their  deplorable  state  of  disrepair,  and  in  place  of  them 
there  has  been  built  a  substantial  and  spacious  edifice, 
providing  excellent  hygienic  conditions  and  amply  suf- 
ficient for  the  needs  of  Arica,  $700,000  having  been  ex- 
pended in  this  work. 

The  establishment  has  five  wards  for  the  sick,  a 
boarding  section  for  men  and  for  women,  a  special 
wing  for  consumptives,  another  for  maternity,  an  op- 
erating room  and  a  free  dispensary.  It  has  a  disinfec- 
tion department  with  all  the  necessary  equipment,  a 
complete  outfit  of  surgical  requirements  and  an  X-ray 
installation. 

The  hospital  also  has  a  wing  used  for  the  accommo- 
dation of  the  sisters,  necessary  laundry  with  modern 
equipment  and  rooms  for  the  staff.  The  hospital 
staff,  which  is  under  the  direction  of  two  doctors,  con- 
sists of  a  matron  with  two  assistants,  and  seventeen 
nurses  and  attendants.  There  are  eight  sisters  of  the 
Order  of  St.  Anne  engaged  in  nursing. 

The  establishment  has  114  beds,  and  during  the 
year  1922  the  cases  treated  numbered  1,617. 

Lazakette 

This  building,  erected  in  the  suburbs  in  the  direc- 
tion of  Azapa  has  three  independent  wings  with  ac- 
commodation for  45  beds.  It  is  built  in  accordance 
with  the  best  precedents.  It  has  a  car  ambulance, 
baths,  an  isolation  ward  shut  off  by  wire  netting  for 
yellow  fever  cases,  a  pharmacy,  convalescent  depart- 
ment, etc. 


762 

Workmen's  Dwellings. 

The  construction  of  workmen's  dwellings,  which  has 
been  begun  by  the  Government,  is  in  an  advanced  stage 
in  Arica.  The  construction  of  four  of  the  eight  blocks 
in  contemplation  has  been  contracted  for,  -each  having 
twenty  houses  grouped  around  a  central  pl&za. 

The  houses,  of  which  the  construction  is  already  well 
advanced,  are  hygienic,  with  four  rooms,  kitchen,  bath 
and  water  closet,  drainage  service,  water  supply  and 
electric  light.  Each  house  has  a  small  courtyard  and 
in  the  interior  of  each  block  there  is  a  large  common 
garden. 

These  houses  are  to  be  rented  to  work  people,  but 
facilities  for  purchase  are  granted,  based  on  the  pay- 
ment of  small  monthly  installments  which  amount  an- 
nually to  approximately  9  per  cent  of  the  value  of  the 
property. 


CHRONOLOGY. 


August 
December 

February 

August 

July 

April 

April 
April 

April 

October 

February 

August 

May 
October 

March 

April 
January 

May 

December 
April 

April 
January 


10, 1866— Chile-Bolivia     Treaty— Bounda- 

,  ries. 

JT 1872 — Lindsay-Corral    Convention    be- 
tween Chile  and  Bolivia  (not 
ratified) . 
6, 1873— Peru-Bolivia— Secret   Treaty  of 

Alliance. 
6, 1874— Chile-Bolivia     Treaty— Bounda- 
ries, etc. 
21, 1875 — Chile-Bolivia         Supplementary 

Protocol. — Arbitration. 
3, 1879 — Chile    severed    diplomatic    rela- 
tions with  Peru. 
4,1879 — Peru  declared  war  on  Chile. 
5, 1879 — Chile  declared  war  on  Peru  and 

Bolivia. 
6, 1879 — Peru     declared     casus    foederis 
with  Bolivia  under  treaty  1873. 
22, 1880 — USS  Lackawanna  Conference. 
11, 1882 — Trescot-Balmaceda  plan. 
31, 1882— General      Iglesias'     "Grito     de 

Montan." 
12, 1883— Chile-Peru  Protocol  of  Peace. 
20, 1883— Chile-Peru      Treaty     of    Ancon 

signed. 
28, 1884— Chile-Peru  Treaty  of  Ancon  rati- 
fications exchanged. 
4, 1884 — Chile-Bolivia  Truce  Agreement. 
26, 1894 — Jiminez-Vial  Solar  exchange  of 
notes  regarding  plebiscite. 
■Chile-Bolivia   Treatv    (not   rati- 
fied). 

on  i  oc\a [—Supplemental  Protocols  to  above 
mlbW)  (not  ratified). 

9, 1898 — Billinghurst-Latorre  Special 

Protocol. 
14, 1901 — Billinghurst-Latorre  Special 

Protocol  (not  ratified). 


16, 1895- 


764 


March  — ,  1901 — Peru   severed    diplomatic    rela- 

tions with  Chile. 

September  23, 1902 — Peru-Bolivia. — Boundarv  Treatv. 

October       20, 1904— Chile-Bolivia    Treaty    of    Peace 

and  Boundaries. 

October  21, 1905 — Peru  renewed  diplomatic  rela- 
tions with  Chile. 

March  19, 1910 — Peru    severed    diplomatic    rela- 

lations  with  Chile  (never  re- 
newed). 

November  10, 1912 — Huneeus-Valera  exchange  of  tele- 
grams regarding  plebiscite. 

January       18, 1922 — Invitation  of  President  Harding 

to  Conference  in  Washington. 

July  20, 1922 — Protocol  and  Supplementary  Act 

of  Arbitration  signed. 

January       15, 1923 — Ratifications     of    Protocol     and 

Supplementary  Act  exchanged. 

January      29, 1923 — President  of  the  United  States 

accepts  the  office  of  Arbitrator. 

March  2, 1923 — Agreement  upon  periods  for  pre- 

sentation of  Case  and  Counter 
Case. 


/ 


